Liberalisms Brain on Drugs

I like the quote from William Galston. I am going to have to start looking for more of his work.

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 7:51 AM

The state should provide two things:

1) freedom to do as one pleases, as long as it does not interfere with other’s freedoms

2) freedom from coercion (especially state coercion!)

The Netherlands seems to have found a nice compromise. The US “protects” its citizens far too much from themselves (making victimless activities into crimes, e.g., drugs, prostitution, etc).

Posted by wolf on Oct 31, 2005 at 9:21 AM

When it comes to the “war on drugs”, America once again shows its truly ugly and intolerant face. Both at home and abroad.

And above all it’s hypocritical face. Not just as can be seen by the hundreds of thousands of its citizens living lives of indescribable deprivation in American high-security rape-torture institutions, known euphemistically as “prisons”, for exercising their freedom to intoxicate themselves as they see fit (here we see again the deep-seated puritanical strain in America to try to make “sins” illegal). This denial of individual liberty is not just in the criminal INjustice system. I have an unemployed American carpenter acquaintance who can’t get a job to save his life - since he smokes marijuana regularly and can’t pass a drug test. Drug tests for getting a job???!!! In civilised countries this would be considered an abomination.

It is a well-established fact that the CIA is shoulder-deep in the world drug trade - again, both at home (what was the name of that journalist who died recently who had proved their involvement in drug distribution in the US?) and abroad (to finance things like weapons and henchmen to run amok in countries the US wishes to destabilise, etc.).

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 31, 2005 at 12:08 PM

I have an unemployed American carpenter acquaintance who can’t get a job to save his life - since he smokes marijuana regularly and can’t pass a drug test.

.

Good! I’d hate to live in a house built by a carpenter whose nails all missed the stud cuz he was stoned…

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 12:39 PM

You dolt, Jay. Drug tests show positive for marijuana even when you are not stoned.

You make fun here, but are you seriously defending this practice? An employer has the right to dictate what you do in your private time?

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 31, 2005 at 12:43 PM

Your absolutely right.

Let the pilots fly drunk and stoned. Talk about friendly skies…

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:03 PM

Are you being purposely obtuse? Of course a pilot can’t fly stoned or drunk. But if he smoked pot last week and takes a drug test today, he’ll still show positive for marijuana. Should he then not be allowed to fly?

Besides, we’re talking more generally here. Because I like to smoke marijuana in my free time I shouldn’t be able to get a job? What kind of country is that - and how does that reflect on the country’s attitude about personal liberties?

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:08 PM

We’re getting way off the main guts of the article here with drug tests - though I do consider them an affront to personal liberty beyond description outside of the context of security issues involving intoxication at the time of performing one’s duties.

What do you have to say about America’s “war on drugs” in general, Jay?

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:11 PM

<blockquote>But if he smoked pot last week and takes a drug test today, he

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:15 PM

Speeding on the motorway is also illegal. If the pilot speeds in his free time should he also not be allowed to fly?

And does this involve merely pilots? What about carpenters? Carpenters who partake in illegal activities such as speeding should also not be allowed to work?

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:25 PM

If the pilot speeds in his free time should he also not be allowed to fly?

Not if he is in jail for speeding…

Look, you seem to be confusing me for a libertarian (or is that Libertarian?)

Just say no.

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:38 PM

I don’t have issues with the current drug laws, except that maybe they are a bit too lax.

So this really isn’t an issue that occupies a whole lot of my time…

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:39 PM

What kind of a circular answer is that, Jay?

What does “just say no” mean??? No to what?

Libertarian? I don’t give a shit about labels. I’m trying to understand the logic of your argument. But I’ve decided to give up on you. There’s no logic there.

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:45 PM

Too lax? The author’s friend’s life destroyed by possession of cocaine? And you find that sentencing too lax? What kind of inhuman monster are you, Jay?

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:46 PM

I give up on Jay the idiot. It’s getting on to 22.00 in central Europe - time for a nice joint (well, these days we don’t need joints any more - thanks to the wonderful Dutch grass-growers who’ve cultivated weed over the years that just requires one hit) and maybe some extra-marital sex to top off the decadent Euro-evening. No, to hell with that - extra-marital is a bore if you don’t have to pay for it! I’m off to the legal brothel right around the corner (yes, there is one - no joke).

Goodnight, virtuous America!

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:52 PM

<blockquote>Too lax? The author

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:06 PM

I think you’re wise to give up on Jay.

The real problem as I see it is that Americans are always bouncing back and forth between a hopeful view of the world and a fearful one. Right now we’re deeply into a fear phase. This dominates all the thinking of the day. (And it can be handily exploited by the real powers in our society, so they’re doing their damnedest to keep us terrified.)

Do Americans love “freedom?” Hell no—but we have been propagandized into fearing our basic institutions of government, and wanting to be “free” of their coercive power. Few of us are very consistent about this “freedom.” We still object when our neighbors do something that offends us or makes us anxious.

This widespread climate of fear fits into the article in another way:  for 20 years our legislatures have been expanding the criminal law and ratcheting up penalties because it has been a proven way of getting votes. Voters are afraid of their neighbors (among other things) and they like the illusion of control, if not safety, that comes from locking them up and throwing away the key. (This is also a good time to mention the nice fat campaign contributions legislators can get from the prison industry, which includes not only the private incarceration companies but also the huge and growing prison guards’ lobby—both of which benefit in obvious and concrete ways whenever punishments increase.)

Our opposition to drugs is puritanical in two senses. One is the familiar notion that pleasure is bad. The other is a kind of flip side: redemption comes through *work.* People who can escape into an altered state of consciousness have less tolerance for miserable jobs. So it pays to keep them away from drugs. (Or it would pay, if you could do it—which we have proven we can’t.)

Posted by druid on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:08 PM

Are you being purposely obtuse?

I missed that one.

When faced by intolerant raving opinions, I do tend toward the purposely obtuse, if only to cast a harsh light on those rantings….

Yes.

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:12 PM

for 20 years our legislatures have been expanding the criminal law and ratcheting up penalties because it has been a proven way of getting votes.

So, politicians should just ignore the people the represent? I mean, after all, they are smarter than us, no?

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:14 PM

oops, “they represent”.

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:15 PM

It seems fairly evident that you hold an utterly incoherent view of the world and that arguing you would be entirely futile, but perhaps someone else will come along to take up the challenge.

Posted by druid on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:17 PM

awesome, dude!

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:22 PM

Ok, seriously.

My biggest objection to the gent from Germany was his demand that I answer his scurrilous and slanderous personal attacks with an argument about something which I have no real opinion.

If Der Mensch truly believed it was a violation of his carpenter friend’s rights to submit to a medical interrogation, why is it alright to demand answers in a rhetorical interrogation.

If Der Mensch wants an intelligent, respectful response, he needs to start at the home field.

The height of arrogance, intolerance and hypocrisy…

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:27 PM

Or as someone more religious than me would say,

You sow what you reap.

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:28 PM

Before taking that second hit of Dutch high octane, I want to thank you, druid, for your wonderfully logical explanation. I’m going to give it a good think - maybe I’ll start to understand things about your country that are foreign to me…

Jay:
“take responsibility for their own behaviour”, eh? They’re putting themselves in jail, right? Not the state you so loathe…

And your Did the druggie know what he was doing, breaking the law? Was it legal when he did it and nobody told him that it is now illegal? is absolutely priceless. Mindless obedience to “the law” is the norm we are striving for, right?

For the first time since adolescence I am reminded of an old aunt of mine who told us of an incident she witnessed as a young girl in a Berlin streetcar in 1942. It was about Jews - wearing their David Star on their clothing - who got roughed up by policemen because they had the nerve to sit down - although the streetcar was half empty. My aunt told us she couldn’t believe how stupid these people were to take a seat: “They knew that was illegal”.

Obviously, Nazi racial laws and drug laws are not to be compared, but there is an interesting comparison of mind-set here…

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:38 PM

Jay,

Maybe you will pass through life and never “reap what you sow”

Or maybe someone you love,  your old friend, your child will be caught up and ground up by the system you love.

Maybe you will be the lucky one or maybe when cry out for
mercy and justice for your loved on some self appointed
moral crusader like yourself will tell you that it was what they
deserved.

As you daughter or son or friend rots away in prison.

That would be justice.

Posted by not systems on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:39 PM

When I first joined this list recently, I was a bit taken aback by the radical nature of some of Rabbit’s and others’ references to Jay Cline. Now I, the “intolerant raver” understand. The most I could accuse you of now is understatement.

A third hit and I’m off the planet…

Later…

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:47 PM

Obviously, Nazi racial laws and drug laws are not to be compared

Yet, you do…

As you daughter or son or friend rots away in prison.

That would be justice.

So, an eye for an eye, heh? Why do you condemn my children for the beliefs of their father?

Isn’t this the sort of behavior that the Left likes to condemn as causing all the violence in the Middle East?

Or is “not systems” advocating dual citizenships, one set of rules for his/her people, and another for “Them”.

Yeah, that is real justice…

Oh wait, that is what really happened in Nazi Germany.

Nein?

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 3:02 PM

<blockquote> Jay:

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 3:05 PM

Or maybe ... your child will be caught up and ground up by the system you love.

If that happens, and the laws are just, then I still believe in “do the crime, do the time”.

Drug laws are just.

Are you exempt from the laws?

But I have raised a daughter that respects herself, respects the laws, and doesn’t blame someone else for her screw-ups.

That alone would have kept a very large portion of the current prison population out of prison.

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 3:12 PM

Freedom, liberty, is as much about responsibility as it is about rights.

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 3:13 PM

“Or is

Posted by not systems on Oct 31, 2005 at 3:13 PM

No just for you

ipso facto, you believe in the kind of dual citizenships that the Nazis were famous for…

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 3:16 PM

No.

I just wish that the misguided and foolish ideology you
spout will bite you hard on the leg.

Even better would be that you drop your moralistic police state
boot licking and act like a merciful normal person…

I doubt that will ever be possible for you.

Posted by not systems on Oct 31, 2005 at 3:24 PM

One might wonder what good purpose drug laws accomplish. . .

Seems to me that they serve no useful purpose and, worse yet, they divert huge amounts of resources to imprisoning a significant fraction of our populatoin.

I wonder - is there any difference between the arguments for prohibition in the 30’s versus the prohibition currently practised via the drug laws?

Posted by wolf on Oct 31, 2005 at 3:52 PM

Does it really help anything to engage in name calling? I fail to see how it might be useful, other than “venting ones spleen” (maybe that is enough?).

Furthermore, i doubt any of us here make policy, so we are all merely expressing opinions of little import (although one can imagine changing someones mind here, it seems to be a rare occurance at best!).

Posted by wolf on Oct 31, 2005 at 3:55 PM

A few things to remember. The modern drug war came from President Nixon as a way to criminalize people he didn’t like -blacks and youth.  The marijuana laws came in the 30’s again as an attack on Mexican immigrants..It seems that western european countries have a more harm prevention attitude and have lower drug use overall.  Could we learn something from them?  Pumpkin 7:00 pm Oct31st

Posted by pumpkin on Oct 31, 2005 at 5:59 PM

wolf, you are right. Even in a moment of eye-rolling pique, I should mind my manners.

Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 31, 2005 at 6:32 PM

For the past couple of decades, the only significant group attempting to present a rational case for drug Prohibition has been those who make money doing the prohibiting.

A growing group of police and judges are organizing to speak out publicly against the utterly failed policy of 21st century drug Prohibition.  You can check us out at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://leap.cc/tbay or contact me for more info heath@mapinc.org

Thanks for this enlightened article.

Posted by SteveHeath on Oct 31, 2005 at 7:22 PM

I realize that I am entering this conversation at a late date,since I haven’t perused this site for the last few days, but after sampling reader responses to the article,I can’t help but feel that there is a basic misunderstanding of what it means to be a “libertarian”.    A true libertarian is an individual that wouldn’t dream of infringing on another individuals rights,a true libertarian believes in personal soveriegnty above all,and that includes anybody elses personal soveriegnty. Basicly,whatever I do is my business,as long as I don’t step on your toes.  For what it’s worth,a true libertarian believes wholeheartedly in “The Golden Rule” If you think about it,if everyone followed the Golden Rule,we wouldn’t need the Ten Commandments.

Posted by Dr.D on Oct 31, 2005 at 7:52 PM

I treat those who are good with goodness,

And I also treat those who are not good with goodness.

Thus goodness is attained.

Tao Te Ching

Posted by David in Canada on Oct 31, 2005 at 8:09 PM

Ye have heard that it hath been said,

Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you,

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,

and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Matthew 5:43-44

Posted by David in Canada on Oct 31, 2005 at 8:39 PM

Thanks for opening the door Dr. D

Posted by David in Canada on Oct 31, 2005 at 8:40 PM

Jay Cline, SHUT THE FUCK UP!  Youv’e stated twice that you have no real opinion about the subject,and obviously haven’t given if much thought,so why the heck do you keep on spouting your uneducated opinions?
<more to come>

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Oct 31, 2005 at 9:25 PM

You mean Gary Webb, Anarcho-Sozi.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,938336, ,00.html#article_continue

Posted by Liz on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:36 AM

Hmm, how did that get there??

I meant: http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/

That’s better!

Posted by Liz on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:37 AM

You’re right there, druid!

Posted by Liz on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:39 AM

Wolf - we SHOULD BE THE ONES MAKING POLICY!

Posted by Liz on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:43 AM

Look at this bloody thing!!!  (It’s about another topic, the Supreme Court nomination - don’t think there is a thread on that here yet!!)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/alit-n01.shtml

Hey WOLF - why do you think the CHRISTIAN RIGHT wackos should be making policy, then, and appointing who they like to judge on policy - and not us?!

Posted by Liz on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:47 AM

Hello Wolf…........... remarkable…... an open minded opinion.  Well done, and Rabbit will return to your points.

Hello Jay…......................You have not broken your record for 100% ignorance, once agian you demonstrate nothing expcept a generic opinion which has been overtaken by genral knowledge 20 years ago, and by reason at every turn.

Liz asks a valid question of Wolf..

Wolf is it possible you are not S Wolf Britain?

Jay you have no place on this thread, Rabbit suggests you piss off before someone swats you.

Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:05 AM

Without right-wing “trolls”, what would there be to make me giggle?

Posted by Liz on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:07 AM

Anarcho-Sozi, the requirement of drug tests before getting a job is now common in Australia, it has been practice for avbout a decade in the mining industry.

Of course it has made “Absolutely No Difference” to Job safety, productivity or product safety whatsoever.

it is like the testing of peoiple involved in accidents.  They have shown here that 60% of people involved in accidents have alcohol or Drugs in their blood, when tested.

The statistivcs also show that about 75% of drivers tested randomly have alcohol or drugs in their blood.

Conclusion, Alcohol or drugs in the blood decreases the risk of accidents.  Of course the two set’s of numbers are never put togeteher, or even people like JAY might catch on.

Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:11 AM

Rabbit?  Dear Liz?

Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:12 AM

To clarify, Liz’s question of Wolf, which is valid,

Hey WOLF - why do you think the CHRISTIAN RIGHT wackos should be making policy, then, and appointing who they like to judge on policy - and not us?!

Hey Anarcho-Sozi, thankyou for letting us know you have forgiven Rabbit for being so intensely rude to Jay. You did indeed make a point of mentioning it at the time, and Rabbit said you would come to understand.  Jay is the lowest common denominator.  He is the one who can even be on the wrong side of an argument when Scorpy agrees for a change.  Jay is as thick as two planks, and only half as bright.

Rabbit was once a twenty kg a year grower down south, and learned to make the best Hashish from Kurdish Iranian frineds when living those years in Denmark. 

Just rely on the local hydro dudes now Rabbit lives in the city.  I think we altered the laws to allow 2 plants to be gron in backyard last year. Of course the AOz capital stae. Canvberra has MANY more privilages than the rest of the country and they have freedom of possession of dope. South Oz allows 9 plants I think and the rest of the country fine or jail you.  Stupid as hell.

Idiots like Jay have of course no idea that at least three quarters of the people they meet during the day are zoned out on some sort of drug.  The really dangerous and totally irrational ones are the “Total Abstainers” 

Rabbit hopes you don’t do the most potent and destructive drug of them all, JAY DECLINE. 

Rabbit hopes you puritan sense is not merely Convenient in that it reflects what is legal only.

The MOST destructive in health and ability to function normally as well as social damaging drug, is of course ALCOHOL.

Tobacco, boring weed that it is, is the most addictive, and second most health damaging.  Luckily more people smoke Pot than drink Alcohol to excess so the world is not too ovverun with Drunks.

Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:22 AM

It is now days end, so rabbit is enjoying a Jack Daniels and a cone of “Northern Lights”, supposedly, looks and smells like it for sure.

Boom Shiva…............Anarcho-Sozi

Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:24 AM

Prohibition never works unless the intention is to make something artificially expensive and an excuse to marginalise the most independant people.

The result of Alcohol prohibition was a booster rocket for the Mafia in America.  The prohibition of Drugs is having much more far reaching and international consequences.

Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:30 AM

Jay don’t mind your manners, your most supposedly savage attacks are like those of a little frog.  You don’t bother anyone really and rabbit is tired of seeing you always apologising as if you said anything strong enough for anyone to take offence at.  Most people on this site, including rabbit are not normally prone to calling people names, unless those names are appropriate.  Where we show disrespect to someone, like all eventually do with you, it is understandable.  Occassioanlly rabbit or others apologse for some such overreaction, but you have honestly never, in your best efforts even gotten more than than a smirk and shake of the head, from Rabbit.  Let’s face it you tried your utmost with Rabbit before deciding to pretend there is no Rabbit.  Sure am I that others are equally as unmoved by your infantile and obtuse contortions.

Are you sure you have not gotten lost on the way to a more appropriate site for your kind of posting?  Can’t you see just at a glance that the posting you are doing is best found on one of those chat sites, you know the ones I mean.  Actually Rabboit knows there is more scope for doofuses like you on Washington Monthly.  There are already several trolls at least as stupid as you there and there are even some lefties, as stupid as you among them, sounds much more fun doesn’t it Jay?  Think of it this way,  You are certain to find likeminded people with your own fine appreciation of knowledge and reason, there.

Please give it some thought.

Rabbit has tossed up in his mind, about which he would rather lose, Jay or Scorpy, and has decided to keep Scorpy. 

Excuse us miss, please miss….......Can we have our money back for this Jay ?    Ok then can you just take him back fro free then?    You can’t.  Yes we understand.  Make our own arrabgements, yes miss, we understand.  Dam it.  Unless we can get someone else to take him we could be stuck with him as our resident joker. 

You are the court jester I guess Jay, nobody else want’s the job.

Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:50 AM

Liz,

yes, Gary Webb was his name. Thanks for the link!

Rabbit,

I’ve always wanted to come and visit your enlightened and civilised nation - I look forward to putting the Aussie weed-growing art to the test - but I think I’ll put it off until you vote Bush’s lapdog out of office! Ha ha…

Is it too much to hope he’ll be dragged off in leg irons to the Hague along with his brother lapdogs Berlusconi and Blair - and the top dog and all his white house and corporate cronies for trial for war crimes?! Nothing like people - hmm… how does our JC put it? ... taking personal responsibility for their own behaviour. That was it, right? Or didn’t they know that starting an unprovoked aggressive war against another country is illegal (in fact, *the* supreme war crime as determined at N

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Nov 1, 2005 at 5:52 AM

So where’s the scorp on this one? Isn’t world communism to blame for drugs?

Or does he perhaps feel uncomfortable about the fact that the Red Czar had more or less the same attitude about recreational drug use as Washington’s Drug Czar?

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Nov 1, 2005 at 5:56 AM

Jay Cline, SHUT THE F* UP!

Ah the sweet caroling of the American Nazi party…

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 7:44 AM

btw, this is what is called hypocrisy.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 7:45 AM

Liz - my point is not who should make policy, rather it is that we (here) do not. But we can influence the making of policy, via several methods.

The simplest (and typically the least effective) way is to discuss issues with those around you, including boards like this and letters to the editor of your favorite papers. While i doubt you will see a lot of minds changing here, face to face communications tend to be more balanced (and much more civil, at least for me).

The next step up is to write letters to the people who actually represent us. That is, to essentially become a (small time) lobbyist. While this has somewhat more chance for actual success, it requires significantly more effort. (A lessor approach is to send your representatives form letters, which seems like a waste of time to me, but opinions vary.)

If one really wants to affect issues, then running for office or becoming a policy aide is the next step up. Very few take this step, , ,

As for who should set policy (Christian right, liberal left, mainstream centre), that is ultimately determined by the voters, for better and for worse. As for who *i* think *ought* to make policy, who cares? (Said another way, since we know how policy is actually made, why play make believe and express our wishes in how we might desire it be made?)

Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 8:26 AM

Jay - why do you believe (do you believe?) that soft drugs should be illegal? Do you think that the price paid in building prisons and loss of productivity from incarcerating people (about 1% of the US population, i think) is worth it?

I do not remember ever seeing a cogent argument for the US drug laws, but would like to.

Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 8:32 AM

JAY or anyone else who endorses a policy of drug Prohibition in preference ot a policy of legal regulation also endorse the following:

Illegal drug dealers actively market to minors.  Legal drug dealers check age ID.

Illegal drug dealers recruit minors to help them sell.  Legal drug dealers do not.

Illegal drug dealers resolve business disagreements with violence on the streets and in our neighborhoods. Legal drug dealers resolve such differences in a civil court

Illegal drug dealers of course pay no taxes on their profits while legal drug dealers do.

Illegal drug dealers hide from police and public scrutiny which means that any attempt at oversight is ultimately futile and requires incredible amounts of police manpower and resources (between 10-20% depending on the agency).  Legal drug dealers welcome scrutiny from public officials and open their doors to unarmed regulators.

A legal, regulated system of drug distribution is NOT without problems.  A legal, regulated system of drug distribution is far preferable to an illegal, completely uncontrolled system.

Those who endorse Prohibition are defacto supporters of the dangerous and destructive illegal drug distribution system.  That’s the message with which we attract so much public support here at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://leap/cc/tbay Thanks for all the comments.

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 9:18 AM

SteveHeath wrote - ” Illegal drug dealers actively market to minors.  Legal drug dealers check age ID.”

Rather than address each straw man in your list, i will just address the first (typically people start with their strongest points).

By your reasoning, the US should be free (somewhat free?)  of underage drinkers. Where i live, this is not only not true, it is not even vaguely close to true. Drinks flow unabated to the underage crew.

While we might come to similar conclusions on this issue, i prefer arguments that are more compelling. . .  and that skip the clearly false and silly rhetoric (” Those who endorse Prohibition are de facto supporters of the dangerous and destructive illegal drug distribution system”).

Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 9:38 AM

I would appreciate it if people, such as SteveHeath, refrain from disingenuous argumentation and confine temselves to expressing their opinions, not others.

My response to wolf’s honest questions is forthcoming.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 9:41 AM

WOLF protests with: Rather than address each straw man in your list, i will just address the first (typically people start with their strongest points).

By your reasoning, the US should be free (somewhat free?) of underage drinkers. Where i live, this is not only not true, it is not even vaguely close to true. Drinks flow unabated to the underage crew.

While we might come to similar conclusions on this issue, i prefer arguments that are more compelling. . .  and that skip the clearly false and silly rhetoric (

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 9:57 AM

What the cops and judges at LEAP have learned in their long experience fighting the so-called War On Drugs is that the primary and most urgent question to be addressed is:

Given that drugs are in high demand by the American public, which system of distribution is preferable - a licensed, regulated system that can be monitored by authorities, OR an unlicensed, completely unregulated system that cannot possibly be monitored and which cedes complete control of drug distribution to criminal dealers?

Once we answer that question honestly, the subsequent questions can each be broken down into varying responses of how best to regulate and monitor commercial production and distribution.

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:01 AM

Or a third system of effective law enforcement and border patrol that shuts down the distribution.

Just because something isn’t easy, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible, or right.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:07 AM

(1 of 2)

wolf,

First, let me clear the decks of what I believe are non-arguments for the legalization of any narcotic and/or hallucinatory drug.

I reject the notion that simply because people break a law and fill up our prisons, that we should legalize the activity.

And as I not-quite flippantly indicated earlier, I am not a libertarian. I do not concede that libertarian thought is the final defender of liberty. When a political philosophy comes to the conclusion that we should privatize everything, when it refutes the very real benefits of collective organization, albeit as potentially dangerous that could be, then that is not a philosophy I would care to study in much detail, much less follow.

Finally, the current drug laws are just. Contrary to the hyper-rhetoric seen here, we do not live in a police state and our prisons are not American versions of Saddam’s hellholes, the Soviet’s Gulags or Vietnam’s Hanoi Hilton. Our society is just, and it is fair. Compliance with the law is not an option.

Fighting for legislative change, however, is certainly a viable, and rightly protected, choice. But until change is effected, it is still against the law. If it can be shown to be a violation of our constitutional rights, if it can be shown before the Supreme Court that the Tyranny of the Majority is stomping on the Rights of the Minority, then the legislative “tyranny” can be bypassed and vetoed by that Court .

But the rule of law is irrelevant if each person can pick and choose which laws to follow. The South tried to ride that horse to secession. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. That would be, in my estimation, a clear example of the Tyranny of the Minority.

To dismiss wholesale the arguments that are against legalization of drugs, as white supremacy racist conspiracies, to cast those who would argue against such legislation, a priori, as racist and undemocratic, is counterproductive and, dare I say it, counterdemocratic.

There is certainly a strong argument that can be made for legalization with regards to the failed attempts of the prohibition of alcohol. But I believe this to be comparing apples and oranges. Prohibition failed, not because of any simpatico argument with drugs, but because alcohol consumption, for better or worse, has been a universally and widely accepted practice and custom since before recorded history.

True, drug use has a similarly long history, particularly with regards to primitive medicine and religion, but for the most part, the use of narcotics and hallucinatory drugs have not been so universal or widely practiced.

Why not?

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:07 AM

(2 of 2)

In fact, there are very clear differentiations throughout history between the two generic substances. I would argue that the evolutionary forces of history have already decreed that drug use is far more dangerous to society than alcohol use and I believe it is unwise to spuriously dismiss history (thus my affinity for a “conservative” appellation to any moniker I am associated with). Prohibition failed because the vast majority of the American public thought it was, well, stupid. If illicit drug use enjoyed that level of popularity, they wouldn’t be illicit.

My objections to legalizing drug use is that is counterproductive to society as a whole. Some have argued the libertarian position that what one does in the privacy of their own home should be their inviolate choice. But typically when drug use has stepped outside its traditional medicinal and religious practices, it has often devastated that culture.

As an aside, it has been argued, in defense of legalization, that even the CIA has used drug trafficking to further their interests. Assume for the sake of the argument that is true. If the use of narcotics and hallucinatory drugs doesn’t devastate society, then how can that argument be squared with its attending argument that the CIA-sponsored drug trafficking has devastated the African American community? If it doesn’t cause gross devastation, then what’s the big deal if the CIA used it to finance operations? Because of the taint of hypocrisy? Since when does hypocrisy legitimize an opposing argument?

Over a hundred years ago, the British did the same to Chinese society with opium, until the Chinese got fed up with the opium-induced devastation and triggered the Opium Wars. Much of the hostility from Asian societies towards Western culture comes from that opium-hazed devastation.

I have no qualms with the legalized drug industry in a few (but not all!) countries of Europe. Their culture is not our culture. If it works for them, fine. But this is not Europe and our laws are not European laws.

With regard to my confession that this isn’t an issue that I have a real opinion on, I think it is now very apparent that it is because I am happy with the status quo, not because I have no interest in the matter.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:07 AM

JC offers a third approach: Or a third system of effective law enforcement and border patrol that shuts down the distribution.

Just because something isn

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:29 AM

Given that the primary argument for the legalization of drug use is that drug use is little different, quantitatively or qualitatively, than alcohol use, and alcohol use is legal, then drug use should also be legal, I thus rest my argument on the observation that drug use is, in fact, not legal. If the two practices are essentially identical, then the resulting social attitude towards both should be essentially identical. Yet, society has defined a clear, sharp and unambiguous line between the two.

Therefore they are not the same and the argument for legalization fails on simple logic.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:29 AM

And, in reply to SH, my own family who is involved in law enforcement have recently told me that every year some one is murdered.

So, but SH’s argument, murder should be declared legal if only because we have not demonstrated the ability to eliminate it from our lexicon.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:31 AM

oops, “so by SH’s argument”...

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:31 AM

“However, your theme suggests that we would benefit as a society by restoring criminal Prohibition of the drug alcohol, since the legal, regulated system of distribution still has

Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:33 AM

SIDE NOTE: References by various posters above to “European countries with legal drugs” are inaccurate.  No such country exists.  There is no country in the world that has adopted a legal, regulated system of distribution for currently illicit drugs.

With regard to JC’s assertion: I would argue that the evolutionary forces of history have already decreed that drug use is far more dangerous to society than alcohol use

I can only offer my personal testimony as a former drug abuser (alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamine…straight for 11+ years now) and that is the two most dangerous, most addictive and most commonly abused drugs in our society are in fact alcohol and tobacco.  But the level of risk and or danger to a particular substance is almost irrelevant to the most fundamental question.  That is, are risky drugs best distributed in a licensed, regulated system or is it preferable to have distribution on the streets, completely unregulated and completely in the control of criminal dealers?

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:34 AM

I reject outright the assertion that

almost four decades of law enforcement and criminal justice responses to public drug use and that is drug use and distribution cannot be stopped.

The assumption is that we must stop 100% of the trafficking is akin to saying that if even 1 gram crosses the border, then we have failed.

That is unrealistic, as I am sure SH’s LE friends have already told him.

Therefore, the choice SH offers is an disingenuous Hobson’s choice.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:38 AM

Do you want to answer the question, JC? That is, are risky drugs best distributed in a licensed, regulated system or is it preferable to have distribution on the streets, completely unregulated and completely in the control of criminal dealers?

No one here is promoting we end the criminal Prohibitions against homicide.  When someone does, I’ll be the first to join you in denouncing the proposal.

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:39 AM

<blockquote>SIDE NOTE: References by various posters above to

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:41 AM

“There is no country in the world that has adopted a legal, regulated system of distribution for currently illicit drugs.”

Maybe so (but hair splitting at best). I note that when i was in Amsterdam earlier this year, the cafes freely sold pot and hash. Making it effectively legal..And very, um,  high quality (pun intended).

Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:41 AM

I already have answered the question. Who died and elected you Arbiter?

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:42 AM

Hi Jay - thanks for the claification. Still i have to wonder, is the cost of the drug war really worth it? Is pot/hash that dangerous?

In any case, it is currently legal to buy pot in CA with a prescription. Note that almost any mental or physical oomplaint can be used by the doctor as a valid reason for prescribing same.

Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:44 AM

If you want to isolate the Puritan element in drug prohibition, it’s pretty easy to do. One approach is to compare our treatment of “dangerous drugs” with our responses to other undeniably dangerous recreational activities—skydiving, high school football, car racing, mountain climbing, etc. Nobody suggests that those things should be prohibited, even though each of them exacts a significant toll in death and disability every year.

So I throw the question open to the assembly, or at least, those who are sincerely interested in understanding our attitudes on these subjects:  Why the difference? Why is it okay to risk my life by riding my bicycle on a narrow mountain road, but not by using a chemical to induce an altered state of consciousness? I have my own answer to that question, but I’d be interested to hear what others think first. (I’ll be pretty surprised if somebody doesn’t give my answer for me.)

Posted by druid on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:46 AM

Moving on to the hard drugs. Is the claim that they too should be legalized (SteveHeath?)?

Does anyone really believe that this would be a good thing?

Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:48 AM

druid - dangerous drugs can contribute to ancillary violence and death. It is ok to risk your own life, but when you risk others, no so ok.

People doped up on meth are dangers to themselves and others. Same for many of the other “dangerous” drugs. Plus the need to obtain such drugs often compels the users to illegal activities. Not to mention the driving whilst on drugs. . .

Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 10:52 AM

Why the difference? Why is it okay to risk my life by riding my bicycle on a narrow mountain road, but not by using a chemical to induce an altered state of consciousness?

I don’t think it is strictly or merely about danger to oneself, but the impact to society as a whole.

eg, Motorcycle helmet laws in many states are ostensibly there because of the high cost of health care vis-a-vis head injuries.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:08 AM

Still i have to wonder, is the cost of the drug war really worth it? Is pot/hash that dangerous?

That IS the $64,000 question.

My gut reaction is yes, but I don’t have a detailed cost-benefit analysis to justify that.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:10 AM

For what is worth, I have no objections to MJ with a doctor’s prescription .... although wolf’s caveat is noteworthy.

During a recent surgery, I benefited from morphine.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:14 AM

Jay - again, thanks for the reply. In matters like this, i prefer a bit of redundancy, just to ensure i am really getting the message being sent.

Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:17 AM

wolf - thanks for the opportunity to clarify, free of harrassment and intimidation…

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:49 AM

Contrary to what JC says, according to many studies, your average US state penitentiary is probably worse than jails in the Soviet gulag or in Saddam’s Iraq. It is something you do not get out of unscathed. Of course it is a matter of degree. I assume conditions are more humane in Massachussetts, for example, than in Texas.

It seems that the US system places the main focus on punishment and not on rehabilitation. Compare the rate-of-return (or whatever the correct word is) with, say, the humane and progressive, dual-sex jails in Finland.

No, European countries don’t have legal distribution systems for hard drugs - with partial exceptions in some countries such as the Netherlands, certain cities in Germany and Scandinavia, where legal distribution is practised for proven heroin addicts.

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:52 AM

“Contrary to what JC says, according to many studies, your average US state penitentiary is probably worse than jails in the Soviet gulag or in Saddam

Posted by wolf on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:03 PM

It (your average US state penitentiary) is something you do not get out of unscathed.

Facetiously, I would add that at least you get out…

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:11 PM

I see so many peeps here wanting to debate this issue,and no one but poor uninformed Jay,and sometimes wolf to offer any defence of the governments continued war on a noun “drugs”.Where are all the rest of these many people who make up the status quo?With their well thought out arguements? jay says:
  “Given that the primary argument for the legalization of drug use is that drug use is little different, quantitatively or qualitatively, than alcohol use, and alcohol use is legal, then drug use should also be legal, I thus rest my argument on the observation that drug use is, in fact, not legal. If the two practices are essentially identical, then the resulting social attitude towards both should be essentially identical. Yet, society has defined a clear, sharp and unambiguous line between the two.
Therefore they are not the same and the argument for legalization fails on simple logic.”

This “logic” is flawed because alcohol,and nicotine are both drugs which ARE legal.Rather than group together all the currently illegal drugs as one thing,and the legal ones anouther,we need to consider each drug and its merits or harmfulness.I think alot of the pro illegal drug arguements here are largely people who are defending Marijauna.Which they know is much more safe to use than alcohol,tabbacco, or caffiene for that matter.Social attitudes change over time,and are shaped by media & politics.Just because it is law doesn’t make it right.Jay would have Rosa Parks in jail!

Every one Should check out the LEAP website that wants to see what the law enforcers have to say about drug prohibition.looking at you Jay,you obviously haven’t yet,and probably wont.It might open your eyes a bit!

It is no secret that marijauna arrests have skyrocketed in the last few years.Not because use has gone up,but because it is being targeted more.What a waste of tax dollars!Why is it being targeted more? Because cannibis users, A. make good prisoners,and B. they are a threat to Status quo put in place by our oppressive Government! People who smoke pot contemplate things,think outside the box,in short,they see through the lies.This scares the hell out of the powers that be. One of the groups making the most money off of illegal drugs are those that run and build prisons.And what a great source for slave labor!ok, maybe not slave labor,inmates can make upward of a dollar a day!They can save up tp call their loved ones,“hi uncle Jay!“At about $5 per min.What a scam!
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to use drugs in the privacy of their own homes?

Wolf:“druid - dangerous drugs can contribute to ancillary violence and death. It is ok to risk your own life, but when you risk others, no so ok.”

Yes indeed! Look at all the death caused by drunk drivers!And I can’t count how many fights I’ve seen because of Alcohol!Yet I feel it should remain leagal and controlled largely how it is.Each indivdidual drug needs to be evaluated seperatly!Pot smokers are pretty much harmless for instance.In fact there have been two reports recently,showing driving high on pot can actually be safer than straight!where alcohol induced risk taking,pot makes you MORE careful,and usually drive slower.Most of the violence associated with the other drugs is involved in trying to get the drugs!If people have access to drugs legally,they are far less likely to commit both voilent crimes and Stealing of property.

wolf:“People doped up on meth are dangers to themselves and others. Same for many of the other

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:55 PM

As far as Medical Pot,I am surprised and impressed by your comment Jay! Maybe if you check some links you will learn more about the rediculous prohibition on Cannibis!  “is the cost of the drug war worth it?” sounds like Jay is coming around,I’m glad you stuck around after all,Jay sounds like you’ve learned something. here is a couple to google,sorry I don’t have the links… or maybe I do…
  Stopthedrugwar.com   Marijauna policy project   Pot-TV.com which is a great resource if you can get past the DEA blocking it here in the States.
Again, I feel Each drug should be looked at individually

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:55 PM

if with a persciption, then how about for religious purposes?

“should drug laws limit religious activity?
“http://abcnews.go.com/US/SupremeCourt/story?id=1267009

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:02 PM

Yet, KVK does not address the central tenet of my logic,

If the two practices are essentially identical, then the resulting social attitude towards both should be essentially identical. Yet, society has defined a clear, sharp and unambiguous line between the two

If they are the same, why the historical difference? I don’t know. But as I said, I am dsiinclined to fight historical forces without reason.

Show me what the historical evolutionary reasons are for that difference, and how it is no longer relevant, and I’ll be the first to sign a legalization bill.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:09 PM

As far as KVK’s argument about the lethality of alcohol and its effects on society, and the result of Prohibition, I have already addressed that.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:14 PM

And the LE argument was addressed a couple hours ago…

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:15 PM

<blockquote?As far as Medical Pot,I am surprised and impressed by your comment Jay!</blockquote>

Perhaps that surprise is more a reflection of your own stereotypes than anything else?

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:16 PM

It doesn’t answer my question above to say that recreational drug use has harmful effects on third parties. The same is true of a skydiver who leaves an indigent family behind when his chute doesn’t open. And look at the nature and degree of the punishment. Who is more dangerous, a buy on a streetcorner under the influence of heroin, or a completely sober driver going 70 on the freeway while yelling at his wife into a cellphone? If the driver gets busted, he might be tagged for a misdemeanor, but more probably for an infraction. The guy with the heroin is guilty of a felony. How come?

Posted by druid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:32 PM

“society has defined a clear, sharp and unambiguous line between the two” The attitude,as I said has been shaped by politics and the media.Cannibis,for example has been villafide by the media and government for political reasons.I recommend “the emporor wears no clothes” by Jack Harer.It was used as a way to undermine Blacks and Mexicans standing in society as was previously posted.It also happens to be hemp,a great natural fiber,which was in direct compitition with DuPonts new synthtic materials back it the old days that is.So the Hearst Publishing Co., in cahoots with Dupont,fed the public propaganda,and thus easily forced laws through,benefiting them!And as I said before,the folks that run things are scared of a thinking,public!So that is where we are historically, here in the US.Reaching back much further we see cannibis used and accepted as medicine,A spiritual tool and used recreationally.
As far as the rest of drugs,who knows why one becomes more popular and thus more socially acceptable?Avalability perhaps?Maybe thats why the locals in coca growing regions chew coca instead of drink booze. I think you are still comparing apples and oranges.Thanks for you comments.

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:33 PM

That’s “guy” on a streetcorner, naturally.

Posted by druid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:33 PM

Damn this site! I just lost my comment! I’ll answer shortly.

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:35 PM

> I am dsiinclined to fight historical forces
> without reason.

Translation:  “I am inclined to stick to historical prejudices without reason.”

Posted by druid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:35 PM

Good definition of a conservative, actually.

Posted by druid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:36 PM

Testing my comments got erased,I’ll reply in a bit. what is the “LE” arguement BTW?

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:36 PM

With regard to the heroism of Rosa Parks, Rosa Parks was arrested.

Our laws are just and fair because we have democratic institutions where we can challenge legislation that is wrong. As was Jackie Robinson in 1944, who was court-martialed and acquitted.

I’ve quoted it before, and I will continue to quote Churchill’s prophetic quote that Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all the ones tried so far. Democracy is messy, it is slow, it is raucous and fractious, and yes, it is sometimes blind, dumb and full of prejudice.

Yet, in the end, Parks was vindicated. The resulting year long bus boycott shoved the issue in the face of the bus company.

If the Rosa Parks incident is no different than the imprisonment of thousands of drug offenders, then why has not one drug conviction been overturned on constitutional rights?

Linking drug use to the Civil Rights movement is a grievous affront to the bravery of people like Parks, King and everyone else who heroically fought, and died, in that battle.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:42 PM

Sorry, LE is short for law enforcement

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:42 PM

Maybe thats why the locals in coca growing regions chew coca instead of drink booze.

No, it is for pain relief, and chewing coca leaves pales in comparison to the potency of cocaine and crack.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:44 PM

Cannibis,for example has been villafide by the media and government for political reasons.

Ah, yes I forgot. The Illuminati Conspiracy.

Cannibis, and other drugs, have been banned because of the effect they have on the drug users, and their consequential behavior on society.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:46 PM

I wil ignore Jay’s factual ignorance but it’s hard not to admire the self-satisfied (and self-satisfying) circularity of his arguments. The laws must be followed because they are just. How do we know they are just? Because when they are unjust, we do not follow them.

The man should be president. He can get somebody with brains to be his vice president and actually make the decisions. The poor deluded know-nothings will be greatly comforted by his aggressive illogic.

Posted by druid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:47 PM

Oh wait, been there, done that.

Posted by druid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:49 PM

The man should be president.

You are more correct than you realize. Actually, the name of the man who became president with that mindset was Lincoln.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:50 PM

“Cannibis, and other drugs, have been banned because of the effect they have on the drug users, and their consequential behavior on society.  Like I said, for political reasons! what is this illuminati thing you speak of?

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:55 PM

Because when they are unjust, we do not follow them.

Exactly. Governments are not perfect, even democratic ones. Maintaining a vigilance against the Tyranny of the Majority is one of the only, if not the only, tool we have in keeping government mostly honest. There is no magic crystal ball that says this is right and fair and that is not.

Except in the minds of the public.

I say again,

f the Rosa Parks incident is no different than the imprisonment of thousands of drug offenders, then why has not one drug conviction been overturned on constitutional rights?

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:58 PM

Like I said, for political reasons!

Just as the laws that protect us from the consequences of murder is political??!

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:59 PM

Agreed ,crack and cocaine are much worse! I think most people drinking are doing it to releive pain as well.perhaps a different kind of pain though.

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 1:59 PM

OK,talk about apples and oranges! These drug laws are supposedly there to save us from our own self disruction,where as murder laws are to save us from others?honestly Jay, are you high?

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 2:02 PM

The apple and oranges are the assumption that I agree the only rationale for drug laws is to prevent us from self-destruction.

Anyone reading my previous posts would not make that mistake.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 2:31 PM

I say again,

If the Rosa Parks incident is no different than the imprisonment of thousands of drug offenders, then why has not one drug conviction been overturned on constitutional rights?

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 2:37 PM

WOLF acknowledges his belief that returning to a system of unregulated distribution for the drug alcohol “may not be preferable” but would “stem the tide of underage drinking.”

So we can conclude that while criminal Prohibition of alcohol may not be preferable, it’s acceptable if underage drinking is possibly reduced.  The descendants of Al Capone stand and applaud.

Jay Cline has offered his own opinion that drug production and distribution can be sufficiently curtailed to make Prohibition a preferable alternative to a legal, regulated system.  His stance is the same reflected by about 5 people in 100 when we give public presentations at LEAP.  The first question we ask is, “Do you believe that the American demand for drugs can be reduced by any significant amount?”.  At most about 5 hands in a hundred people will be raised.  For those people, the question between a licensed, regulated distribution system versus a completely unregulated and criminal system is moot.  So we politely allow them to bow out of the remaining discussion among us and the 95% of the remaining audience.  To wit: Which is more preferable, a licensed, regulated system of distribution or a completely unregulated and criminal controlled system?  Following our presentation given by cops and/or judges with years and decades of experience on the front lines of the Drug War, about 4 in 5 will agree that ending drug Prohibition and replacing it with a licensed, regulated system of distribution is preferable to having criminal gangs dealing drugs in our neighborhoods and street corners.  The rest we don’t need, because it only takes 51% (literally) and 60% (more conclusively) to change the laws.  If you are one of the 95%+ of Americans who does NOT share JAY’s belief that we can effectively curtail illegal drug production and distribution, given the 35 year utter failure to do same, please drop me a line at heath@leap.cc and I’ll show you how we can put a LEAP speaker into your local civic group, school group or church group.

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 2:43 PM

A final note with regard to the inane analogy between allowing adults to have a legal, regulated system for drug distribution and allowing adults to have a legal right to commit homicide——-The basis of our message at LEAP is that we accept as perpetual fact that currently illicit drugs have been for 40+ years and will continue to be for the future in high demand.  Government statistics tell us that over 30 million Americans will demand and use at least one illicit substance during the coming year.

Homicide on the other hand, is not in much demand and further it involves an unwilling participant as compared to drug transactions which are conducted SOLELY by willing participants with 98% being of adult age.

In my home county - Pinellas County FL - we have a population base of about 1 million.  That means that about 120,000 residents actively demand and conduct illegal drug transactions throughout the year at the rate of about 250,000 transactions per week in this county alone.  Since virtually all transactions are conducted in secret and there is no complaintant, the police have utterly no hope of reducing either demand or trafficking, save for the few hundred people they stumble upon by accident each week. Thanks for all the feedback and I look forward to hearing from those of you who can help us carry the message of LEAP to more Americans.  And for sure check out the website http://leap.cc/tbay and send me your comments about what we do or questions about our positions, our presentations and/or our history of perpetual futility trying to wage the War Against Americans, aka the War Against (some) Drugs.

Steve

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 2:51 PM

His stance is the same reflected by about 5 people in 100 when we give public presentations at LEAP.

So, laws are being implemented by a minority vote of 5%??

Wow! I didn’t realize I was part of such an elite powerful group…

Of course, SH’s own logic that the minority viewpoint is irrelevant only leads to the conclusion that since the majority of Americans don’t believe in the legalization of drug use, his own view is superfluous.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 2:56 PM

Oh wait, just saw another question that many people often pose to us.  That is, “What about heroin or other risky illicit drugs?  Should they be legal also?”

The answer is of course, yes.  The more risky the drug, the more urgent it is to move the distribution of that drug off the streets and into a licensed, regulated setting.  That’s how we currently deal with the three groups of drugs that are the most risky, the most commonly abused and the most addictive - alcohol, tobacco and pharmacueticals.  We of course have not eliminated all the problems related to these three groups of drugs, but we have been successful at moving over 99.9% of alcohol and tobacco sales off the street and into a regulated outlet.  And we have had almost as much success moving all pharmacuetical transactions off the streets (over 99%). 

That’s not perfect, but it sure beats the reverse of having a complete 100% of all drug sales taking place on our street corners, in our back alleys and in our residential homes.  Only the Prohibitionist endorses that system of drug distribution.

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 2:56 PM

His stance is the same reflected by about
5 people in 100 when we give public presentations at
LEAP.

So, laws are being implemented by a minority vote of
5%??

Wow! I didn’t realize I was part of such an elite
powerful group…

Of course, SH’s own logic that the minority viewpoint
is irrelevant only leads to the conclusion that since
the majority of Americans don’t believe in the
legalization of drug use, his own view is superfluous.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:01 PM

Sorry for the repeat. Problems with the site, I think.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:02 PM

Of course laws are not being implemented by the 5%.  The drug laws were implemented in 1937 (Marijuana Tax Act) and in 1970 (Controlled Substances Act).  At the time of passage for both, the percentage of Americans who believed that such laws could effectively curtail illegal drug production and distribution was rather high - likely well over 50% of Americans I’m sure and thus the laws were supported by sufficient citizens to have them enacted.

However 35 years and over one Trillion tax dollars later, not many folks in most crowds will raise their hands to the challenging question, “Do you believe we can effectively curtial demand for, production of and distribution of illicit substances in the U.S.A.?”  JAY, I respect that YOU believe that it’s possible.  I’m simply sharing with the Reader at large our repeated experience when doing LEAP presentations.  We’ll also add that the majority of our presentations are given to local civic clubs (Rotary, Lions etc) and church groups because we set out to deliberately target white Middle Americans with established business and political ties in their community.  On those occasions when we do a presentation to a college group or on rarer occasions, a music or lifestyle festival, we can’t even get FIVE hands in a hundred.  Instead, what we usually receive in response to the question is rollicking laughter.

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:05 PM

To clarify, the “inane” anlogy of drug use and murder was in response to SH’s contention that if you cannot completely eradicate a crime, you should legalize it.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:05 PM

Instead, what we usually receive in response to the question is rollicking laughter.

If the implied statistics are true, then there is no argument and there should be no difficultly in legalizing drug use.

The conclusions being made do not reflect reality….

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:07 PM

Of course the one question that is apparently not being asked, or tabulated, is not whether the current regime of laws are effective, but should we simply not try.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:09 PM

“If the Rosa Parks incident is no different than the imprisonment of thousands of drug offenders, then why has not one drug conviction been overturned on constitutional rights?”

Perhaps there isn’t as much public pressure,which is probably because some people are afraid to be labled as soft on drugs,and those that use them probably don’t want to draw attention to themselves.They can hide the fact they use and are pro drug, where as, it is nearly impossible to hide being black. Which is basicly what she was being harrassed for.

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:14 PM

Is there a bozofilter on this system?

Posted by druid on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:14 PM

The laws are NOT effective,hence the easyness of obtaining drugs despite 40 plus years of attempted irradication,and Draconian sentencing.

Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:16 PM

See there’s a great example of how one fool can completely derail a potentially useful discussion. Poor KVK is stuck trying to answer a question that rests on a patently false premise, i.e., that “not one drug conviction [has] been overturned on constitutional rights.” It’s not clear just what Jay means by this phrase, but in point of fact, thousands of drug convictions have been overturned for violations of the bill of rights. They are a drop in the bucket, but they exist. On the other hand, that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Y’all are letting Jay whipsaw you all over the map with abject nonsense.

Posted by druid on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:18 PM

JC: To clarify, the

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:24 PM

but in point of fact, thousands of drug convictions have been overturned for violations of the bill of rights.

Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been.

Which one of those overturned convictions was because drug use itself was deteremined to be the right that was violated?

Failure to read the Mrianda rights, improper search or seizures, etc, have nothing to do with the inherent rights of drugs use that is being claimed.

So, I say again, with qualification,

why has not one drug conviction been overturned on the constitutional right to do drugs?

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:29 PM

<blockquote>Pardon me, I never made such a statement.  My statement was,

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:34 PM

With all respect to everyone else here, I’m really used to a little higher signal-to-noise ratio in my online discussions. I had high hopes for this place because I’m quite fond of the print magazine that sponsors it.

But there’s only one way to raise the level of discourse when somebody like Jay comes along, and that is to steadfastly ignore him until he goes and ruins somebody else’s conversation.

I may check back in a few weeks, but for now I must regretfully abandon what should have been a very valuable discussion.

Posted by druid on Nov 1, 2005 at 3:53 PM

druid,

I, too, am new to this forum and am contemplating doing the same. But on the other hand, that is exactly JC’s purpose - and I am somehow loath to grant him his wish so will persevere - at least for awhile.

Fuck him. Let’s just just try not respond to his noise. True, easier said than done - I’ve fallen into the trap of gracing him with a response on several occasions. Let’s just let Rabbit take care of him.

Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on Nov 1, 2005 at 4:17 PM

I also read In These TImes and checked out the forum for
the first time on this article.

I was not happy to find this retrograde freeper running the
show here.

Jay so do you read the magizine or are you just trash that
washed up on the web.

I don’t apoligize for not being polite or Jesus like in my
comments to you because you are jack booted scum.

I really do hope you get yours…

Posted by not systems on Nov 1, 2005 at 4:41 PM

JC, I most definitely am not inferring, “If we can’t stop it…”

That’s a given as far as we’re concerned, given that 35 years after passage of the CSA and steadily escalating drug penalties, sentencing laws, forfeiture laws etc, the level of drug imporation, domestic production and combined sales are at their highest levels ever.  Drugs in the year 2005 are cheaper (given inflation), more readily available, transported in larger and larger quantities.

It’s obvious to us (though perhaps not to you and I respect your different perception) that the current $65+ BILLION illegal drug trade in the United States will continue perpetually.  Even a 20% reduction (which has never happened in U.S. history) would leave us with an over $50 Billion a year industry.  Therefore, the only question remaining is who will be in control of distribution and sales.  SInce you happen to disagree and have the opinion that this multi-billion dollar industry can be effectively curtailed (significantly reduced…however you wish to word it), it’s understandable why you would find our Lead Question as moot.  Thanks again for the feedback.

Posted by SteveHeath on Nov 1, 2005 at 5:12 PM

Steve,

I agree that current efforts at border interdiction, which is I believe where a lot of the money is being spent, has been grossly ineffective. I also agree that a significant portion of the cash crop is domestic.

We need better enforcement, if we are to effectively stop it. I do not believe that has to be 100%, but serious changes need to be made.

I do not know what the answer is, except to say I obviously do not stand behind a “drop back and punt” solution, which is what legalization means for me. Dealing with the demand should be at least as critical as the supply.

Starting with our children is the most effective long term solution. Treating the use of drugs as social blights by setting up cordon sanitaires around our children, whether that is physical, as in centered around school zones, or social, as in providing children with more constructive outlets and better support in resisting peer pressure, is one facet.

The penalties for distribution need to be higher and more severe, not less, is another facet. There needs to be a more concerted effort, including better metrics beyond mere arrest statitistics.

Meth labs are easy to set up, yet more laws such as the one that puts pseudophedrin (I believe that was the drug) behind the counter, are needed. Tracking the production of critical materials in synthetic drug manufacturing is important.

The hype behind the War on Drugs needs to turned into serious action, not political platitudes.

In the 1980s, the prohibition of armed forces material was busted as coordination between military resources on the high seas and local police forces stopped a large portion of incoming drugs.

There are plenty of solutions that will work, if given the chance.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 5:32 PM

Steve,

As someone directly involved in the LEAP, I would still honestly like to hear the answer to this question,

Of course the one question that is apparently not being asked, or tabulated, is not whether the current regime of laws are effective, but should we simply not try.

I have reviewed your comments thus far, but don’t see that answered. Of those 95% of people you talk to, how many think we should just stop enforcing the laws and legalize it?

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 5:35 PM

With regards to the question of my rationale for posting here, I am a passionate progressive who believes that the Democratic Party is no longer the choice of progressives who want real change.

This is a progressive website that, so far, encourages freedom of expression, not only of divergent viewpoints, but the manner in which they are expressed.

The fact that I disagree with the more vocal readers here is not important to me.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 5:38 PM

Again, with regards to the Democratic Party losing its way, I point to Congressman Kucinich’s remarks in the most recent article at ITT that it is all about the war.

I have already argued that fighting the tyrannies of Saddam, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. is part and parcel of what I believe progressivism is all about. You don’t have to be a socialist or a pacifist to believe in social evoltion and social justice.

Dems’ obsession with the war is why they have blown every election since 2002.

Posted by Jay Cline on Nov 1, 2005 at 5:44 PM

How about this.It is illogical,and probably unconstitutional to declare ANY substance to be illegal.You see,crimes are committed by individuals that may,or may not be under the influence of a mind altering substance.To declare any substance to be illegal presupposes that said individual will commit a crime.Contrary to popular belief,there are millions of people out there that ingest these substances on a regular basis,and wouldn’t hurt a fly,but they have this sword of Damacles hanging over their heads.There is something to be said for personal responsibility. Criminals commit crimes,and in due time they will be weeded out by normal law enforcement protocol.There are way too many citizens in stir for a ridiculous policy,they should be cut loose if only to make room for real criminals,like illegal aliens,for instance.

Posted by Dr.D on Nov 1, 2005 at 6:34 PM

Clarification: illegal aliens and the leeches that hire them,and the so called public servants that support them.

Posted by Dr.D on Nov 1, 2005 at 6:44 PM

Jay says : ” I have already argued that fighting the tyrannies of Saddam, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. is part and parcel of what I believe progressivism is all about. “

So when are you enlisting, Jay ?

Posted by David in Canada on Nov 1, 2005 at 7:03 PM