Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A necessary rant on the Drug War and liberal denial...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 04:53 PM
Original message
A necessary rant on the Drug War and liberal denial...
FREEDOM is not Left or Right, and on the issue of drugs, most Libertarians and not a few paleoconservatives are spot-on, compared to the salvation rhetoric and belief in benevolent psychiatric systems evident among many a liberal writer.

I'm amazed that activists, even those who want to decriminalize, often fail to understand the centrality of the Drug War and Prohibition to everything that is wrong with this this country, the world, and the reigning economic system.

First, the sheer idea that the state can IMPRISON you for things you ingest! What are RIGHTS, without the holiest right to your body and temple?

Don't give me no Nancy Reagan shit about the children. Minors are better protected from beer than they are from The Weed. Why is that?

Second, the HYPOCRISY of Prohibition: We live in an environment that markets Prozac as the official happy pill; tobacco for the masses; speed for five-year olds - it's called Ritalin and dispensed by public school shrinks; alcohol advertised and available on every ghetto corner; psychotropics literally forced down a million unwilling throats; caffeine as the fuel that keeps the work force running; massively addictive Paxil; the "little blue pill" on the teevee; speed in the guise of diet pills; antibiotics prescribed routinely for viral infections... all these are Good, eh?

Third, domestic repression and RACISM. In the business of generating public hysteria, Drug War was the prototype for the present War on Terror. Drugs as an excuse for draconian laws. Drugs as an excuse to put down out-groups and radicals, with planted evidence if necessary - such a long history! The first targets of Prohibition (cocaine, 1913) were Southern Black men, what a surprise. The politicians leading the charge were KKK. The next targets of Prohibition (alcohol, 1910s and 1920s) were Trade Unionists. Surprise, surprise.

For a century the police apparatus perpetually swells in size, drugs are the justification for any surveillance, today we see the end of the Fourth Amendment. Rich white junkies don't go to jail, they become President. Two million people in our state-run dungeons, double the number from just 10 years ago, the majority convicted for the drug trade, generally not involving violence. They serve as the forced-labor pool for microchip makers, keeping everyone else's wages under control.

There's another word for this: China.

Fourth, the pillar of covert POWER. Okay, so you're CIA and you want to micromanage the world on behalf of high finance. How do you recruit and finance a rebel army to ruin some nation far from American shores? How do you do it with money off the government budget? How do you keep the loyalty of mercenaries? How do you convince French gangsters on the docks of Marseilles to crack heads at your command? How do you get Laotians to follow your orders? You give them a free pass to run their wares into YOUR country, that's how. And while you're at it, you take your cut. Which is the lion's share. Sweet.

Same pattern for sixty years: The covert sponsorship of the drug trade by operators ensconced in U.S. state agencies, their propietaries and related spook cabals goes back to the Kuomintang in the 1940s, and runs the gamut through the Burmese heroin lords, the French Connection, the Turkish and Mexican armies (those old mainstays), the Vietnam heroin wave, the Colombia-to-Contra-to-Bushmob pipeline, the Afghan mujahedin heroin wave... And say hello to your old friends, Hekmatyar and Osama, Manuel and Pablo...

Did I mention the smack-dealing Pakistani ISI and its American-approved Frankenstein, the Taliban?

The above reads like a capsule history of the corresponding narcotic consumption patterns in the United States, does it not?

Best of all, every single one of these groups was splendidly anti-communist and God-fearing, whether Christian or Muslim, with an accordant influence on U.S. society, each with their own gangs and lobbies in the Land of the Free.

Okay, when the time comes and they've outlived themselves, how do you beat the Taliban for peanuts? First, before 9/11, encourage them - hell, pay them off! - to kill the poppy harvest. The last payment, a mere $43 million dollars, was delivered in May 2001. They thought it was great. Stupid Taliban. How properly Islamist of them to punish the growers, and the Mullahs felt solid enough in the saddle to try it.

Then, after 9/11, you can rain dollars down on the Afghan warlords. Send in your CIA men to cut the deals: "Just switch to our side," they'll say, "and you can start planting again." And the farmers celebrate.

Now the new heroin wave, from the land that no longer belongs to the Taliban but to Karzai and Khalilzad, can be bought in little plastic packages on the streets of Chicago.

Fifth, DEMORALIZING the damned. Look at the domestic victims of Drug War: groups that the Anglo elite wants to weed out: blacks, white deviants, leftists. Works out wonderfully and consistently, decade after decade... Given the rich history, at what point can we characterize the use of drug war as a control mechnanism on unwanted minorities and out-groups an intentional effect of the state's involvement in the drug trade and Prohibition?

The LSD wave, a special case, began in the CIA's MK-ULTRA mind control operations. Having once turned themselves on, these guys wanted to dose everyone they could! This caught on. Independent chemists went to work, and soon the kids were chewing acid like candy. This particular story is declassified, the stuff of academic scholarship. Has anyone noticed? (Martin Lee, Acid Dreams.)

Sixth, the fount of CORRUPTION in society. Prohibition turns cheap and common plants turn into cash on the vine. There has never been and there will never be an anti-drug effort that succeeds - short of a holocaust like the 1950s in China, when they just rounded up a million opium users and shot them in the back of the neck.

Every single case of Prohibition otherwise ends the same way: inevitably, some among the police, prosecution and border guards will sell to the highest bidder. The more the police crack down, the higher prices and profits will go. For every desperate youth they imprison, another enters the trade. The profit margin rises. Inevitably, the sheer force of money finds a crack in the law enforcement. Cops are no different than other people. It's a function of the human condition. With persistence, you will always find the one who sells himself, and build from there. If a key figure resists, he is bumped off.

Yes, the police do stage theatrical crackdowns, invariably on the competition to whoever the main gangsters are at any given time. Small-time operators are rounded up, victory is declared. Why does anyone think the United States is different from Colombia, in this regard? The principles of the Lansky-Luciano gang win in the end: Though mafias may rise and fall and be replaced, a Hoover can still insist for 30 years that there is no organized crime in these United States.

And the Kingpin of Crack, Papa Doc Bush, goes on teevee to promise he will put lots of crack dealers in jail. Lots and lots of crack dealers. Just not his blessed sonny boy, W.

It never changes. This is how Prohibition has always been.

Perhaps none of it was planned this way in advance. The parts of the Drug War machine simply came together over time, as logical developments. Regardless, it has turned into a system.

Everyone has their role. Every aspect of the profit-addiction-profit system is its own industry: the growers, the kingpins, the chemists, the smugglers and spooks, the street dealers, the politicians who cover the trade, the cops who are on the take, the honest cops who think they are crusaders collaring up the filth, the prosecutors and lawyers, the prisons and prison suppliers and prison employers, the think-tank whores who spread hysteria among the middle classes, the psychiatrists and counselers.

Seventh, we arrive at the top of the pyramid. There we find - as always - who else but the BANKERS?

So, say you need to launder an estimated $200-$400 billion a year in illegal drug trade revenues? Where can you hide such a sum?

Only in the mainstream.

You stick it in big friendly banks, or pass it off as legitimate corporate revenue. And then you watch it flow downstream, to Wall Street, multiplying as it goes. You know exactly who "just won't say no" to drug money deposits, and it turns out to be the financial system as a whole.

Where is the problem? The high kingpins are in the executive branch, and bankers are the chief spooks, from the Dulles Brothers to William Casey.

Business is a rough world, so we've been told for many a year. Profit margins on real production fall perpetually, yet growth remains a commandment. Now here is a business that multiplies its winnings at every stage of production. All you need to do is to inject the booty back into legitimate front entities.

Nineth, it's so great to be high! Wasn't it splendid? Now get ready to PEAK.

Dearest Bankers, when you and your buddies and their pals and the other gangs have passed off their proceeds as legal revenues, it adds to every wondrous money-bubble you fatten. Every drug dollar that goes into a stock-listed company factors many times over in stockholder value. At least, as long as the bubble keeps blowing and growing.

And why ever stop? You can leverage and option and triple-hedge to the stratosphere. Every dollar counts twice, then ten times, then thirty. The bubble keeps growing. Never mind that it pops! Won't I know to be first out of the market, before it does? (A common signal for a "correction" is the election of a Republican president. That's why they call it Smart Republican Money.)

Never mind how badly the bubbles pops! To those at the top, the ones who are hurt are mere animals. We rule, we just keep pumping it. And pumping it.

As my man Ruppert has said: America isn't high on drugs. It's high on drug money.

NOW ORDER THE BOOK "DRUG WAR" BY DAN RUSSELL
http://www.drugwar.com/dwindex.shtm
Monumental. Novelistic. Paradigm-shifting. Deep and moving. Personal. Covers centuries. Academic. Tells the hidden history of America itself. Best book I've read in the last two years. Thank you, Dan Russell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. nice rant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. B...but how would the prison industrial complex self-perpetuate...
Edited on Mon Apr-18-05 05:01 PM by porphyrian
...without the "drug war?" If we put mandatory minimum sentences on alcohol-related crimes, politicians and their families run the risk of imprisonment. What about the stock holders?

On Edit: "families" not "familys"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Great rant!
I have never used illegal drugs myself except for a little experimentation with marijuana back in grad school, but I can see the racist and classist assumptions behind the drug war.

Yes, meth (the drug that is currently in the news) is bad stuff and wreaks havoc on your body, as I saw when I worked with street kids, but it wasn't a problem before the elites declared economic war on farmers and blue collar workers.

If the best thing you can reasonably hope for is an $8/hour job (that $1280 a month before taxes), then the prospect of making big bucks by selling methamphetamines must be nearly irresistible. Nobody seems to be talking about that, just about the "bad people" who run the meth labs.

Meth addicts and crack addicts and other kinds of blue collar and underclass addicts are the people with nothing to lose, the casualties of the de-industrialization of America and the destruction of family farms and rural communities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MountainLaurel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
42. Something else about meth
It only drew federal attention when middle-class white kids in the Midwest and California housewives started using it. No one gave a crap when it was truckers and meatpackers being provided with it by their employers or bikers cooking it in the desert.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Claybrook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. Wonderful post
Thanks for taking the time to get all of this good information out there. I agree with you completely, and then some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
firefox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yeap, and the criminals are in government.
Edited on Mon Apr-18-05 05:06 PM by firefox
Free Cannabis For Everyone and end the drug war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imperialism Inc. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. As per your Second item it should be
called "The War on Some Drugs"
I think you nailed it. I can't really add any more :) But wanted to give it a kick.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kazak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. Nominated...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AliceWonderland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I second that nomination
An important topic, and one that is too often overlooked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is the best essay I've seen on why the WOD causes more victims
than legalizing drugs would create.

You almost minimize the mastery of this post by referring to it as a rant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
9. Pot = Bad Ambien = Good
Boggles my mind how the most saturated corporate drug market ever would have a problem with a natural growing substance.

Democrats ought to declare war on drug laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. Very well put, its time to speak up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. Drug users the best scapegoats since witches.
Edited on Mon Apr-18-05 08:08 PM by K-W
Err, wait, often drug users were burned for being witches... I guess its just the best scapegoat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stew225 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. Awesome Rant! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
14. THANK YOU ALL...
I only hope this and 10,000,000 other testimonies make a difference!

Thanks for putting this on "the greatest," too.

BTW, Sweetheart's (post #11) is an excellent thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
15. Rant on!
Not going to get any arguements or "liberal denial" here :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
16. Kucinich the only candidate in the primaries--
--to use the term 'prison-industrial complex' on his website. Goes a long way toward explaining why the MSM always said he was not a 'serious' candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. good point
Edited on Tue Apr-19-05 02:37 AM by G_j
nobody else has had the guts to name it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donailin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
17. great rant. no argument from me. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Claybrook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
18. This deserves a big kick
So kick.

There.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
19. Thanks for a really great post and the heads-up about this book!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
20. Very well done
Wouldn't change a thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
21. The prohibition violates the bill of rights
A natural right that existed before the constitution was written, the
right to imbibe whatever medicine or concoction one sees fit, is an
unenumerated right. The 9th amendment has been trashed.

States have the absolute right to make their own laws without federal
impositions on states rights... the 10th has been trashed.

The right to free speech includes the right to listen. In the pursuit
of happiness, religions of the world from time ancient use drugs of all
sorts freely as a religious seeker sees fit. Listening to those drugs
can teach wise lessons as so many 1000's of years of wise history
tells us. The 1st amendment has been trashed.

In a drugs war, the arms are drugs and paraphanalia. To keep a well
armed militia in our modern times requires that all citizens keep drugs
around. They are dangerous, like all armaments. That is our right.
The 2nd amendment has been trashed.

The ugly drugs police come in our houses without laws, listen to our
telephone conversations, read our emails, and quarter themselves in to
our homes. The third amendment has been trashed.

The drugs polize nazis search homes and lives without rights.
Illegal search and seizure of our natural
rights is a violation of the 4th amendment, and it has been trashed.

Persons who do drugs are deprived of life, liberty, and property, and
private property is illegally siezed for public use, without just compensation. The 5th amendment is trashed.

That anyone claiming to be an american can support drugs prohibition
is outrageous, and shows what a low bunch of fascists the nation has
become. The corporate states of the corporations is no longer any
land of the people, and until the people are returned to power with
inalienable rights, it is the obligation of every citizen to
exercise civil disobedience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
not systems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 02:30 AM
Response to Original message
22. Drug money greases the empires grind stone.
Edited on Tue Apr-19-05 02:30 AM by not systems
Great post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
24. excellent post
bookmarked for sure :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
25. Failed drug war won't protect our children
Edited on Tue Apr-19-05 08:28 AM by G_j
Clare Hanrahan who wrote this LTTE addressing our local politicins and the "drug war", is a friend who spent 6 months in federal prison for protesting at the SOA and wrote a book about it. Many of the women she met in prison were victims of the "war on drugs".




http://www.mountainx.com/opinion/2005/0406hanrahan.php

Apr 6, 2005 / vol 11 iss 35

Failed drug war won't protect our children
by Clare Hanrahan

In their recent commentary ("Where We All Live," March 2 Xpress), Council member Terry Bellamy and Vice Mayor Carl Mumpower use the poetry of a child living in public housing to evoke sympathy and elicit support for increased drug-law enforcement in Asheville. But why is it that communities of color face far more scrutiny than the condominiums and gated homes of wealthy Asheville despite statistics showing that illicit drug use is many times more prevalent in white communities? People of color are overindicted, underrepresented and overimprisoned in a failed war on drugs that targets low-level distributors, their addicted customers, and friends and family members who often have minimal involvement in the crimes.

In this duplicitous and sentimental appeal to protect children, the two Council members make no mention of the 1.5 million children with a parent in prison who have been orphaned by this war on drugs. Are you not aware, Ms. Bellamy, of the draconian sentences meted out to low-level distributors and first-time offenders? Mandatory sentences of five, 10 and 20 years are a financial disaster and a human-rights horror. Murderers, rapists and pedophiles serve less time. Does this make our communities and our children safer? Do you not know about the drug-conspiracy laws and the rampant prosecutorial misconduct in this war on drugs, in which uncorroborated charges result in sentence enhancements that far exceed any definition of justice? Do you not realize that the children of drug-war prisoners seldom, if ever, have an opportunity to visit their parents (who are often incarcerated thousands of miles from home)? Did you know that children with parents in prison are five times more likely to end up in a prison cell themselves? What kind of poems are these children writing?

These and other disturbing facts about how the war on drugs destroys children's lives are available through The November Coalition, a national organization devoted to ending drug-war injustice.

Out of sight/out of mind is not the answer to the problems spawned by illegal-drug distribution and use. Public money does need to be spent but not on prison cells in abusive and debilitating state and federal systems, and not on potentially deadly taser guns or armored police vehicles capable of breaking down our front doors in no-knock raids. What we need is affordable housing, so low-income families aren't concentrated in ghettos of despair. We need drug-treatment programs, so we can reduce the demand for illegal substances and provide addicts with ongoing community support on the road to recovery.
<snip>

Freelance writer Clare Hanrahan (celticwordcraft.com) lives in Asheville.]

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patiod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
26. Great rant, and I'm 95% behind you
No exaggeration, I drive in fear of being stopped for something minor, and the cops seeing a joint my SO may have dropped in my car last time he drove it. So then I lose my car, because what cop in his right mind wouldn't steal a car legally? I can't believe I live in a country where the police have the right to steal my car, sell it, and keep the money because there's a joint on the floor.

I can be transporting Valium, Ambien, boxes of liquor, cartons of cigs, no problem. But they can take my car because of a friggin joint. Obviously, this is a problem. Obviously, using marijuana shouldn't be a punishable offense. Okay, that one is easy.

But here's a question -- how do you deal with the ravages of highly addictive drugs like meth, crack and and heroine that can mutilate a life pretty quickly (unlike tobacco, a poison which takes some time to kill)? And yes, meth is disproportionately hitting the dispossessed, and what should government do about that? Should people just be allowed to make meth wherever and whenever they want? In the apartment downstairs from me?

I acknowledge that the war on drugs doesn't work, and -- I'm interested in hearing from people who have given this some thought - how should the country handle highly addictive drugs? What does work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheepyMcSheepster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
27. kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bruce McAuley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
28. Keep up the good rant!
Definitely nominated!

Bruce
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Thanks again to all!
Though perhaps the length of the post tends to hinder discussion, I had to say it all. I'm very grateful for your comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenaholic Donating Member (158 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
30. Drug laws CREATE criminals
Very good post.

Another really insightful book is Drug Crazy by Mike Gray

http://www.drugcrazy.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
31. "state can IMPRISON you for things you ingest"
this is the thing I have a problem with from the standpoint that if you're high on something and get in a car and kill someone. I don't care if it's legal (like too much legal wine) or something illegal. If you're impaired, you're impaired. How do we stop someone from hurting innocent people

I think all of this is about supply and demand and in this country we only like to deal with supply ( get those jets flying/spraying over poppy fields) and not the demand side of the equation. The demand part is not sexy and it is very expensive and difficult to treat a person who is addicted. We keep "fighting" addiction the wrong way. We also don't like to deal with the fact that the human brain often likes to be addicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Drunk driving is illegal...
There are special penalties for drunk drivers who cause accidents.Driving under the influence of drugs is illegal.

Assaulting someone is illegal.

Robbery is illegal.

Commit crimes under the influence, they're already illegal. No need for an additional law.

This is not the point.

The point is about your freedom, your bloodstream.

Yes, people fucked up on drugs fuck up their families, fail to meet responsibilities, end up killing themselves. At a much higher rate using the legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, psychotropics, fat pills, etc. etc.) than will ever be the case with the illegal ones.

No, hard drugs (as opposed to marijuana) should not be freely available or marketed. The Netherlands dispenses heroin for pennies to junkies at treatment centers, and this much-maligned program has cut drug use there in half.

Legalization makes social control applicable. Social control is effective, control by criminal laws is not.

This is why you have AA and NA and drug treatment programs.

You're mistaken about the cost of drug treatment: it is no more expensive than the prison system. In the mid and long run it would be far cheaper.

But that's still not the point. I don't want to imprison junkies in detox programs. The first principle must be individual freedom, including the freedom to make wrong decisions and fuck up your life, or all our talk of democracy and republic is a joke.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. BS

I have seen too many children harmed by parents who sell them for drugs, abandon them for drugs, put them in harm's way for drugs. I have seen too many teenagers raped by "dad's friends" at the drug house where they live. I have seen too many teenagers addicted to drugs because adults wanted to make extra money.
Ingesting, selling, making drugs hurts society in so many ways. It is not a personal issue. Methamphatemine is especially horrible. It not only destroys the individual, it destroys the family, the children, the environment. Society is left to pick up the pieces.
Individual freedom has limits or society is reduced to chaos.

Sorry: you are wrong.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Oh really? I guess I've been blind!
These are terrible behaviors that should be punished when they are engaged in. That's why there are laws against child prostitution, abandoning your children, rape and other crimes.

What you're describing are the consequences of PROHIBITION, which not only entirely fails to solve the human problem of addiction, but exacerbates it massively by pushing it underground.

Who would "sell their children" for drugs if there was no money to be made from drugs? Why are drugs a profitable business that anyone can enter? Can you see the connection?

I grew up in a big city and I've seen terrible things due to drugs as well.

Now tell me why all of these problems are so much less dramatic in societies that take a softer line on drugs? Tell me why drug use actually declines under the Dutch model?

Justify putting people in jail for marijuana, which has never caused the extreme behaviors you describe.

Go ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Not consequences of prohibition...
...Consequences of over indulgence. The consequences of taking the easy way out. The consequences of no consequences. It would be easy for me to dump my child--stay home, steal some cold medicine, make some meth. It would be easy for me to allow my neighbor or neigbor's neighbor or pedophile to take care of my child, while I choose to ingest meth and forgo my parental and societal responsibility.

You say there are laws against rape / prostitution, etc. Sure. But, you are advocating for an after-the-fact response. These children of meth-families should not be put into the situation in the first place. To prosecute the rapist means that a child was raped. Why wait? Protect the child.

Most recently, there were several children living in a home with a meth lab. The meth lab (which has toxic chemicals) broke and the children were permanently injured due to the toxic fumes. (lung damage). The parents are strong, smart, people. They could have chosen to be contributing members of society--but chose instead to attempt to make easy money--and to not give a ratsass for their children.

I have no sympathy for these parents. I have no qualms about prohibiting their individual rights to ingest meth and destroy their children in the process.

What are you advocating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. If not for prohibition...
Edited on Tue Apr-19-05 10:15 PM by JackRiddler
Those parents would not have had any reason to set up a meth lab in their home, if not for prohibition. There would have been no profit in such an action. Or, if they did it for their own supply, they would not have needed it if they could get it from a doctor.

You talk as though legalization - which would allow MORE, not less control of various drugs - would cause everyone to feel an irresistible urge to become meth addicts. That is hardly the case. Do you need a law not to behave in this manner? Would it really be "easy" for you to dump your child?!

The addictive types would still be addictive types, but would no longer be forced into a life of crime such as you describe. At least, not as often; you're never going to have a perfect world, and the striving for a perfect world is one of the main fallacies behind prohibition that makes things even more imperfect than they need to be.

Sadly, after the fact response is the only kind of response we have ever had to crime within the criminal justice system - unless you want to set up a "department of pre-crime"? Shall we scan people for criminal genes and arrest them preemprively?

It sucks, but under the rule of law you can't arrest someone before they actually do something bad.

Outside the criminal justice system, you can take actions that would reduce the amount of crime. Among these would be the decriminalization of the drug problem. Legal pharmaceuticals are much more tightly controlled at the moment than are meth or heroine. Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Lots of meth labs are set up for personal use production
not for profit making (except incidentally). This is true in Missouri, anyway, which is the second biggest meth producer after California. So, your assertion that people would have no reason to set up their own labs is incorrect. Even if you could buy meth at Wal-Mart, it would be cheaper to make it yourself. And if addicts can't afford to buy legalized drugs at Wal-Mart, then they will simply steal them. That's usually what people who can't function in a capitalist society end up doing.

I tend to agree that legalizing most drugs is a good idea, and would eradicate a great deal of crime; but I also feel that there are some drugs that are so inherently harmful to both the individual and to those around that individual, that they should remain illegal (and I do advocate treatment first, not imprisonment). Meth and cocaine are the two that come to mind.

I also agree that the hypocrisy in this area is rampant; that's pretty obvious. But what to do about it? We have a bad situation as regards alcohol; adding certain drugs to that societal mix only makes it worse, not better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. still thinking?
Why no answer?

I just remembered my own words: "Don't give me no Nancy Reagan shit about the children. Minors are better protected from beer than they are from The Weed. Why is that?"

Any answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. well I am talking about recidivism in addiction whether alcohol or
anything else. I think that is what makes it expensive. I won't argue on prison v. treatment as I never saw stats on either and it depends on the treatment processes. I don't know how to quantify it.

But I am also saying a person can drink a bottle of whiskey and it is not illegal. Okay, no problem. But then that person gets in a car adn they are a danger to everyone on the road. OOPS.

I think the Netherlands system is the best we know about and I wish we would give it a try in this country. I am not sure if the Netherlands give the addict enough to satisfy the habit...do you.

The other concern I have is if a person has already commited bodily injury crimes to get money to get drugs...how would you deal with that aspect of the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
33. One last kick to beat the Pope threads...
thanks again..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
39. Spot On!
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-05 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
41. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC