Operation Stupid-Ass Way To Spend Tax Dollars
You'll never believe this but...frat boys smoke pot! And even take other drugs. And if you ask a frat boy at San Diego State to sell you a little weed, he just might do that!
Luckily, as Tony Perry writes in the LA Times, there was "Operation Sudden Fall," a six-month investigation where taxpayer dollars went into a bunch of cops playing dress-up, passing themselves off as frat boys, and entrapping a bunch of kids who are getting high and helping other kids get high:
SAN DIEGO -- The undercover officers started to appear at San Diego State fraternity parties about six months ago.They dressed like students, complained about their parents and professors, and talked freely and knowingly of things of great interest on campus: music, sex and drugs.
Soon they were accepted, with no questions asked. They were spotted at student hangouts on and off campus. They swapped cellphone numbers with other partygoers. They text-messaged their newfound friends.
The real students appeared to accept the pretend ones -- most but not all of whom were men. On a campus of 34,000 students, blending into the crowd was not difficult. Neither was collecting evidence of drug dealing and drug use.
On Tuesday, authorities announced that 96 young men -- including 75 students -- had been arrested on a variety of drug charges as a result of Operation Sudden Fall, which infiltrated seven fraternities on Fraternity Row and Fraternity Circle. Officials said the name of the operation referred to the prospect of sudden death from drug usage.
The investigation involved marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and Ecstasy.
One of the alleged drug dealers is 19 and recently had been praised as a model student in a university publication. Another was just a month away from earning a master's degree in homeland security and had worked with the campus police as a security officer. One allegedly was selling cocaine to high school students.
A criminal justice major was arrested on suspicion of possession of cocaine. As he was being arrested, he asked officers if this would hurt his chances for a law enforcement career, officials said.
Now, best of all, taxpayer dollars will be spent to prosecute and imprison these kids.
Yet, as my pal Stanton Peele points out, all drug use is not abuse. How many of you know highly productive members of society whose version of the after-work martini comes in cannabis sativa?
My late friend Roy Walford, a UCLA gerontology professor, used to take coke to write his papers. He wasn't "destroyed" by drugs (and most users aren't). He used them to be more productive.
How about we end the drug war and start fighting the war against stupidity? Legalize drugs, the price will go down to the point where pot costs what you pay for organic salad, and the feds can make their coin by sticking a tax on it, like for cigarettes, instead of getting our dollars for prosecuting and/or keeping a bunch of not-exactly-dangerous-felons in prison.
I'm not in favor of legalizing drugs and drugs use without careful and detailed consideration of revamping liability tort law... more specifically about the automotive insurance industries position on compensating victims of stoned drivers and co-workers, and the medical insurance industrys stance on treating the one dee ten tee's (1D10T's) who OD in their zeal to escape reality.
In my opinion that's a 'personal accountability' issue (which Americana has invested huge amounts of offert into avoiding for the past 4 decades).
May I add though, that I have no problem with decriminalizing the vast majority of currently illegal drugs (I mean aside from it would put a full quarter of the American prison industry out of work) and devoting that slice of the Great DC Tax Pie to medical research into real world problems (Amy, have you devoted much time in reading about the abuses of the 'asset seizure' laws?).
I guess it's little more than yet another manifestation of the Orwellian 'Big Brother knows what's best for you' mentality that big gov't has been foisting on a complacent society since the end of WW II.
Gunner Retired at May 9, 2008 7:09 AM
"How about we end the drug war and start fighting the war against stupidity?"
First, just as with the Sandy Banks article commentary below, you must define "legalization" and show that the consumer and the public is protected. Second, there is too much money to be made in stupidity. It's what your neighbors do that gets your liberties stripped, your children labeled invalid for 21 years and so forth. It powers all sorts of public action because the individual can't be bothered to think about anyone but himself, and anything but the most simple concepts.
That shows up everywhere - even here, when people focus on what something means to them to the exclusion of what the whole job entails.
Consistency warning: was an anecdote offered above as some sort of proof, in a blog where "the plural of anecdote is not data" appears with some regularity?
Radwaste at May 9, 2008 7:17 AM
Sneaky inconsistency keeps me up at night. o_O
Flynne at May 9, 2008 7:32 AM
I agree with you Amy about marijuana, and would like to see it legalized. But these students knew the law, and chose to sell some really harmful drugs (meth in particular). Personal use is not the same as profiting from illegal activity. They deserve what they will get.
eric at May 9, 2008 7:34 AM
Sandy Banks piece is here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/05/01/sandy_banks_get.html
As for the anecdote offered above, the Walford one? Unfortunately, I don't know of data collected on drug users who don't destroy their lives -- I'm guessing they don't give grants or government dollars to show that. I do know of numerous examples of that: friends of mine who have accomplished much in their lives to make the world a better place (with inventions, science, their research) and who smoke pot or take drugs (mushrooms, for example), but aren't destroyed by drugs. Far from it.
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2008 7:34 AM
"the abuses of the 'asset seizure' laws?" - Gunner
Not totally familiar w/ this but is that when the gov. seizes assets of someone accused of a drug related crime?
I watched a Lifetime movie the other night (...yes, I just admitted to that...we can all make fun but a lot of the movies are well researched.). The main character was dating someone who she knew used drugs. He also helped supply it to friends. She didn't know the extent of it. Well, she was busted for conspiracy b/c she took a phone message ("hey can you have Jon call Mike Smith?") from a buyer.
She was then told that there was a mandatory minimum sentence and the only way to reduce it was to "cooperate with authorities" - but of course she didn't actually know anything. She got 20 years. The drug dealer bf only got 10 b/c he named names of people involved, like the gf who didn't actually do anything! It's a witch hunt. Once she realized how fucked she was she said to the lawyer "I'll have to take money out of my house" or something and the lawyer says "you can't do anything b/c the government seized all your assets." This woman was a middle class widow w/ two kids and a nurse. Never in trouble before. Never hurt anyone.
Don't know how much of this is based on fact, but again, despite the melodrama and poor acting, Lifetime researches the laws. I went to bed shakin' in my boots that night...afraid of this Big Brother government who wants to protect us for our own good...
Gretchen at May 9, 2008 8:31 AM
As long as Big Pharma has its claws in the national till, and its lobbyists on the Hill, marijuana and other illegal drugs will remain so, unless or until we get enough people in Congress with enough common sense to realize that the war on drugs was lost long ago, and have the guts to implement new laws and strategies to deal with it. I'd love to see possession of marijuana, at least, decriminalized to a misdemeanor. Less than 1/2 an ounce? Recreational use, pay a fine, done. Agreed that there should be some restictions on more addictive substances, but if someone is that far gone that they get arrested, rehabilitation, not jail, seems to be a more viable solution. Personal responsibility, once again, comes into play here. YMMV
Flynne at May 9, 2008 8:33 AM
Amy,
Correct. Ie when smugglers are caught their car/boat/aircraft/etc is seized and auctioned. Predictably there is (far) more than anecdotal evidence some agencies have set their sites upon property and fabricated a 'drug raid' on or in said property to entitle them to sieze it for their own use.
There is one individual (the name eludes me presently) who owned a company producing containers for the pharmaceutical industry. One item in the line was used by cocaine distributors to sell 5 gram amounts of cocaine. The FBI then commenced to run him out of business and sieze his production facilities and warehoused stock.
I learned of this event many years ago and the details are vague, but that's the gist of it.
In another case a Sheriff in Arkansas used the siezure law to exact revenge on a former neighbor by arranging to have marijuana plants seeded on the guys farm, then staged a raid. It goes without saying he (the Sheriff) seized the farm and a family member won the auction (this is discussed on a web site devoted to abuses of property siezure laws).
As with all laws, there is a way to abuse them... and of course those whom will do so for their own gain.
G_R
Gunner Retired at May 9, 2008 8:41 AM
The drug war is no different than Prohibition. It's why the USA has a higher incarceration rate per capita than Russia.
Pirate Jo at May 9, 2008 8:50 AM
I was just over at a friends last night and he told me about one of our mutual friends, Joel. I knew he was a functioning crackhead for about five years. He actually had a fairly decent job as an electrical engineer which paid well. But he had to sneak away about every fifteen to tweny minutes for a hit. He got popped about three weeks ago with seven grams and has tried to kill himself twice since. He doesn't want to live without crack. For the last five years I have been wondering how on earth he has survived this long smoking crack and riding a hog. I wouldn't ride with him because he was suicidally stupid on a bike. I'm not crazy about legalizing a drug like crack or meth or any drug which is so heavily addictive and physically and mentally destructive.
I know in England they have heroin addicts which are controlled by the state giving them a controlled level of the stuff. I'm not so opposed to that. My sister was a meth addict for several years to get over herion. It totally destroyed her body, turned her into a big mushy blob.
As far as marijuana, I think it's time to drop the crap. It is far less dangerous than most kinds of booze and in some cases, it's actually very beneficial. I personally know of people who smoked it to keep their appetite up because they had cancer or aids. It worked. Fuck what the govt says. It worked. It also reduces a lot of stress which can ravage the body itself in a person who is terminally ill. Also, it tends to decrease violent urges in people. I would bet that if you took an average spouse abuse household where the woman is a nagging bitch and the guy is a whiskey drinker, took away the booze and made them smoke pot for a month, you'd come back to a house where everything was just fine. No bruises, no yelling, no police on the doorstep.
Personally, I cannot smoke pot or drink liquor and drive or ride. Beer isn't really a big deal. I can spread a few beers out over an afternoon and be totally fine. I once tried to drive my girlfriends car when we were sooooo stoned, that I hit the tree next to the driveway. Didn't make it 20 feet. I drink Bacardi at home but will not go out and drink it because I'd be a hazard on the road. But, if they legalize pot, that doesn't mean they are going to go easy on driving under the influence of it or anything else.
About the confiscation laws. There is definitely a lot of abuse going on here. About ten years ago, there were a bunch of sheriff's deputies in Louisianna who were caught planting small amounts of weed in cars they pulled over to take whatever they could. The police departments are allowed to keep and use the proceeds and they were getting rich off this. I also think the punishment has to fit the crime. There have been cases of people losing large expensive boats because they had a small amount of weed onboard. That's just fucking ridiculous. It's the government outright robbing it's citizens. There is supposedly a standard within the law of the state not being able to punish someone excessively for a petty crime. (you can't get 20 years for jaywalking). When it comes to the drug confiscation laws, they just throw this principle out the door.
Overall though, I do agree, the drug war has been a fantastically expensive boondoggle and many of the less destructive drugs should be legalized.
Bikerken at May 9, 2008 10:22 AM
If we're going to make things illegal because people sometimes cause themselves harm while using them, maybe we should get the government involved with junk food a bit more. Does anyone need to buy more than $20 worth of fast food at one time? Obesity and lack of exercise are a gigantic problem, far outsizing (pardon the pun) any health problems caused in the USA by drug use. We should get the cops to stop bothering the pot smokers and start frisking cars for how many super-size orders of McD's they are carrying.
Pirate Jo at May 9, 2008 10:39 AM
Uhh, Pirate Jo, you're actually a little behind the curve on this one. Beleive it or not, some states have already proposed this. I think it was Georgia or Alabama, that wanted to restrict the sales of fast food if you were overweight. This came up last year and fizzled out, but it has been proposed. I totally agree with your thinking though. Real freedom has to include the choice to make stupid decisions.
Bikerken at May 9, 2008 10:50 AM
I can't smoke pot or really drink anything harder than Chardonnay, but if you want to smoke pot or drink vats of Baccardi, have at it -- providing 1. you don't drive doing it or otherwise endanger the rest of us, and 2. you don't make me pay for you if you get cirrhosis, etc.
A pot-smoking friend of mine uses the vaporizer. It's a bit hard for some to learn to use, he says, but it's preferable, healthwise. Smoking pot is very bad for your lungs.
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2008 10:50 AM
Just saw this, about a kids book about pot, on CNN.com
So...should you lie to your kids about drugs, or talk straight to them? So to speak.
Amy Alkon at May 9, 2008 11:02 AM
Well, I talk straight, or try to, to my kids about most things. And I give them a bit of wine now and again.
I think pot should be legalized, but I have no problem with the arrests at SDSU.
When I was in college we had kegs in the courtyard and frequently pot growing in the courtyard too. Dealing a bit of pot is one thing. Openly selling cocaine and then driving your lexus to the bank is another.
jerry at May 9, 2008 11:30 AM
By the way, these kids did not just have a little bit of pot, they had a whole grocery store of drugs PLUS several guns. They were well on their way to becoming professional gangsters. This bust might just be the best thing that ever happens to them IF it causes them to re-evaluate going into the drug dealer business on a permanent basis.
Bikerken at May 9, 2008 1:28 PM
Frankly I'm tired of seeing fun, nice people destroyed by chemical recreation.
I've lost enough friends, thanks: two to meth, one to coke, one to smack -- and those are just the deaths. I've lost track of how many lives I've seen derailed by this stuff. Dealers suck ass. Lock 'em up.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 9, 2008 1:39 PM
Why would anyone need to lie to their kids about drugs? The truth is pretty sobering for most drugs. I think the best after school program ever was Scared Straight, where they took at-risk kids for a field trip to the local penitentiary. I remember when I was about 14 or so seeing it on 60 minutes. It really reinforced in me that prison was not an acceptable alternative lifestyle.
eric at May 9, 2008 1:39 PM
Now that's funny, eric. That experience doesn't make me think drugs suck, it makes me think the law sucks. And sorry, Gog, but the bad decisions made by a few of your friends doesn't mean we should lock people up for doing things that only cause harm to themselves. If you had a few friends die from heart disease, would you lock people up for eating too much cholesterol?
Pirate Jo at May 9, 2008 2:06 PM
Legalize, treat, and tax.
White powders ... BAD!
Pot ... NOT BAD!
Jay R at May 9, 2008 2:41 PM
I am all for legalization across the board, I am not however, pro-criminal. I am sure that some reasonably decent folks got caught up in this bust, probably even some who had little to nothing to do with dealing - unfortunately that's how this sort of thing works. But the quantity and variety of drugs taken and guns seized lend me to believe that at least some of these folks were nothing more than criminal thugs.
Gretchen -
Yes, that lifetime movie is right on the money about how that sort of situation pans out. It's not even all that rare (excepting that it usually happens to lower income women, not middle classers). There are a lot of these sorts of stories that can be found at Drug Reform Coordinators network. They also have links to a couple of top notch seizure sites.
GR -
... more specifically about the automotive insurance industries position on compensating victims of stoned drivers and co-workers, and the medical insurance industrys stance on treating the one dee ten tee's (1D10T's) who OD in their zeal to escape reality.
Personally, I advocate charging legally intoxicated drivers with attempted manslaughter. I like to think if the penalty is harsh enough, it might get through drug soaked brains that they shouldn't fucking drive.
As far as medical issues, I support the notion of putting a certain percentage of the taxes garnered through drug purchases to support the treatment of drug ODs in the ER. I also support the dissemination of OD kits - there are drugs available (and in some places freely given) that can counteract the effects of ODs for almost any drug. There's a new one out, specifically for heroin that is apparently far more effective than adrenalin.
Amy -
So...should you lie to your kids about drugs, or talk straight to them? So to speak.
Credibility is possibly the single most important tool for effective parenting, consistency running a close second. As soon as they figure out that you're bullshitting them, you can kiss those serious, important talks good by. Because even if you force them to listen to it, they aren't going to believe any of it.
DuWayne at May 9, 2008 2:46 PM
I am all in favor of legalizing many drugs, Pirate Jo. Marijuana should be legal and should never have been criminalized in the first place. Cocaine and heroin, well, I would like to see America adopt the UK model of regulated legalization for two reasons: first to get the black market out of the business, and secondly to make sure the drugs are not the poison that the black market distributes.
In the meantime, trafficking is a crime and should be punished as such. Had these students been exposed to the full consequences (ie Scared Straight) of their actions, I bet some of them would not have gone for the easy money. It's a damn shame and a waste.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Fw2y2S6Ew
eric at May 9, 2008 2:48 PM
Hey, one more time: What do you think "legalization" means? I really wish people would stop using that word without defining it. The law has degree.
-----
"And sorry, Gog, but the bad decisions made by a few of your friends doesn't mean we should lock people up for doing things that only cause harm to themselves."
This isn't true anywhere. People who have ignored the law because their personal needs were more important enabled gangsters to kill anyone who got in the way of their marketing schemes. Addicts take hospital beds and other assets.
Radwaste at May 9, 2008 3:36 PM
>define legalization
In the UK, I don't know if it was successful or discontinued, a program was established for heroin addicts whereupon they could live as normally as possible, with a job and home, and at night obtain a dose of pharmaceutical grade heroin, much like our own methadone clinics.
eric at May 9, 2008 3:49 PM
"And sorry, Gog, but the bad decisions made by a few of your friends doesn't mean we should lock people up for doing things that only cause harm to themselves."
And their grieving friends, lovers, spouses, families, employers, employees, co-workers, et al just don't f'n count in your mind, eh?
Please, let's not pretend we live a disconnected existence where our actions don't affect the world around us.
These people had chemical, genetic, and psychological predispositions to addictive behavior that they didn't comprehend before they got hooked, any more than you or I could know if our first cigarette or cocktail would lead to occasional indulgence or a life-destroying addiction.
I don't want to see insane levels of prohibition and I think the super-criminalizing of drugs has harmed this country to no end. But there's a reason those white powders are illegal and very little of that has to do with restricting our liberty for the sake of social fascism.
Spend a week with a tweaker sometime and if you're not convinced meth cookers need to be thrown to the lions then I say you've lost your senses.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 9, 2008 4:12 PM
What do you think "legalization" means?
I'm sorry, I thought that was pretty fucking obvious. Legalization of currently illicit drugs, means much the same thing as alcohol and tobacco being legal. I.e. legal and regulated with some restrictions, age restrictions being the most obvious.
About the only occasionally confusing distinction, is that between legalization and decriminalization.
People who have ignored the law because their personal needs were more important enabled gangsters to kill anyone who got in the way of their marketing schemes.
I agree and this is just another argument in favor of legalization. It would get the criminal element out of it. Throw in prostitution and gambling and you cut out the bread and butter of these vicious thugs.
The most recent shooting in my neighborhood, which I was way too close to (the women who got hit in the leg is walking with crutches and is expected to make a full recovery), was apparently over marijuana dealing. Not at the high end either - it was just nickel and dime bullshit. Yet worth an asshole shooting a pistol out of the SUV he was driving, into a crowd of people.
I am not going to claim that legalization would end such violence. The people who play these stupid, selfish fucking games have such hopeless, pathetic lives that prison, the morgue or possible maiming are an acceptable risk. But it would cut out the profit motivation, meaning that for a lot of these folks, it just won't be worth it anymore.
Meanwhile, it would make a huge cut into tax-payer liability for the drug war. Billions saved annually in prosecution alone. Billions more saved by not keeping a lot of non-violent drug offenders locked up and locking up more and more every day. Billions to be brought into the coffers through heavy taxation, even after the costs of regulation and enforcement are factored in.
On top of all that, it would make a lot of public health programs aimed at drug abuse treatment and prevention, far more effective and users far more comfortable with getting help.
You seem very bent on taking a public health stance on this, so lets talk about that. I have to admit that there is little evidence for legalization as a public health measure, because of the fact that it is illegal or merely decriminalized everywhere in the world, definitive evidence just doesn't exist. We can't even look to history, because modern regulation of consumer goods just didn't exist pre-prohibition.
OTOH, we have better than fifty years worth of evidence as to the effectiveness of prohibition. And we aren't too far from the thirty year anniversary of the war on drugs. So we have plenty of evidence to gauge the effectiveness of the war on drugs as a public policy tool. And guess what? It's not a pretty picture. To put it mildly, we're losing - not any one side, all of us.
So again, the onus is on you. Defend your abysmal public health failure of prohibition and the war on drugs. Or conversely come up with a better idea.
Oh, and if we're going to gauge legality by public health, why aren't you supporting a constitutional amendment to eradicate guns from the public and fighting for tough on gun possession legislation? Because from a public health perspective, guns are a fucking nightmare. Prohibition seems to be your answer for other public health issues, so lets be consistent.
DuWayne at May 9, 2008 5:15 PM
Gog -
And their grieving friends, lovers, spouses, families, employers, employees, co-workers, et al just don't f'n count in your mind, eh?
In this context, no they don't. Just as their feelings don't count if I decide one day to run off and never see any of them again. Just as their feelings don't count if I decide to shoot myself in the head. Just as their feelings don't count if I drink myself to death. Just like their feelings don't count if I decide eat myself to death. Most people do consider their loved ones and the people in their lives when they make decisions. That doesn't mean we have to.
These people had chemical, genetic, and psychological predispositions to addictive behavior that they didn't comprehend before they got hooked, any more than you or I could know if our first cigarette or cocktail would lead to occasional indulgence or a life-destroying addiction.
And it is in part, because of prohibition and the war on drugs, with all of it's propaganda and bullshit, that we don't more effectively deal with people who have that sort of disposition. We have created a culture of distrust around the entire issue of drug addiction and dependency that is antithetical to the goal of actually helping such people. Too, it is exceedingly difficult to get drugs for lab based research into addiction and virtually impossible to get permission to do research that involves providing human addicts with drugs in a clinical setting. The best research into human drug addiction that involves real human subjects is happening in the fucking Netherlands.
BTW, having severe ADHD I have struggled with substance abuse much of my adult life. I actually managed to get something of a handle on it, translating it to more benign outlets, but it remains a very big part of my life. Honestly, I am not sure I wouldn't still binge if I didn't have kids to support.
It really sucks when it's that easy to let chemicals control your life. Control it to the point that you are making decisions that are contrary to your wellbeing or worse, contrary to the wellbeing of your family and loved ones. It makes a person not only feel weak, it convinces them they are. It's a ugly, nasty, perpetuating cycle. But my problems are not a good enough excuse to make something illegal for Joe across the way.
Spend a week with a tweaker sometime and if you're not convinced meth cookers need to be thrown to the lions then I say you've lost your senses.
I have never tolerated tweakers for that amount of time nor will I. But yeah, meth addiction sucks ass, especially after a few years of use. But then, I have the same problem with alcoholics. Hell, I can't even stand to be around people who are really drunk. Doesn't mean that I want to burn Jim Beam in effigy. Indeed, I am not averse to having a little bourbon myself on occasion - though it's been a while.
Ironically, I will probably be taking an amphetamine based drug soon. Not really significantly different than meth. So really, no, I don't want to throw the cooker to the lions - not that I'm sure who at the pharmaceutical company would be appropriate to throw to them.
DuWayne at May 9, 2008 5:45 PM
DuWayne, you're inventing things, not relating my position. I'm just trying to wake the brain-dead, apparently all a-twitter about being able to light up in front of some guy with a badge, and show that there is real work to do. Again: in just one situation, if you want "legalization", you must realize that employers with critical positions must then be provided with impairment measurement techniques or be exempted from laws stating that the subject drug's use is acceptable.
You can use tobacco or alcohol as examples of the distribution and regulation of any drug; you can use OTC medication as your model. All of these are regulated, even as they are in some cases public health disasters. That does not matter to people who must have their toot today, now, other people be damned, but their action doesn't define legal markets.
Heh. You brought up guns. You really don't want to go there in regulations - your pot smokers will be positively ID'd and each sale approved by the FBI, and dealers would be subject to no-notice inspection by the BATF (during regular business hours.
Responsibility is a great thing. In practice, few people are responsible all of the time, and hundreds of thousands demonstrate daily that they cannot act responsibly w/r/t tobacco or alcohol use. I will not use "slippery slope" or other fallacies to argue this issue, because I don't have to: the American public has already shown us what it does when allowed, so if you're going to allow another drug into the market, you have to do some work to make sure of the actual effects of your action.
After pot, what's next? The law is defined. What THC concentration is legal? What kind of things may coke be cut with? How strong can heroin be? What warnings will be on what packaging? When you're talking about changing the law, that's what the law says about existing legal drugs.
Radwaste at May 9, 2008 8:21 PM
I tend to fall down on the libertarian side here because I don't really condemn anyone for their drug use or any of their personal addictions as long as they don't drag you along with them. With the possible exception of the tweaker that moved in next door to me a few months ago, I leave them alone. Until they put Black Sabbath on their stereo at three in the morning and crank it up as high as it can go, (I'm not exaggerating), like the asshole next door did, I have to say live and let live. The asshole next door on the other hand had me knocking his door down and screaming that I was going to rip his balls out through his throat if he ever did that again. The one thing that reallllllyyy pisses me off more about some kinds of drug users than some others is that they seem to think you have to take the little magical mystery tour with them. I don't even think some of them know what kind of chaos they afflict on others lives. They also have this feeling of invisibility a lot in the way that they think you are not seeing the obvious signs that they are totally wacked. (disclaimer here, some drugs are a lot easier to spot than others, I couldn't spot someone on coke. For the most part they seem normal). But tweakers walk down the street walking like that bug in MIB wearing the people suit. Their jaw is clicking way and they keep working it. And then they look you in the eye and deny it.
My youngest brother used to send people he owed money over to my mothers house to collect it. She was terrified, I bought her a gun and taught her to use it. My little brother James, has been in prison because of drugs or drug violence all or part of every year since 1993. His son, (one of nine of his kids he hasn't ever paid a bit of child support for), has been adopted by my mother and I help her out financially taking care of him and he stays with me sometimes. James doesn't even get that this is a lot more than a 65 year old woman needs to be dealing with. Some drugs tend to give you tunnel vision in which you only see the world through yourself. I have to think that if what he was selling was legal, he wouldn't have been selling it. He would have had to look at some whole other area to get into to make money. It's possible that his whole life would have been different were it not for the lure of easy money in the drug trade. That goes for millions of other people in this country.
OTOH, None of us is perfect. Most of us have some kind of weakness that we tend to use something to help us get through it. If it isn't booze, sex or drugs, it's god, or some combination thereof. Some of our countries most colorful preachers have demonstrated that with a vengence. If you are one of those who doesn't have any abuse problems at all, good for you, now go away because I don't trust people like you.
Bikerken at May 9, 2008 8:35 PM
Maybe in many ways the drug war is foolish, maybe in many ways it is wasteful.
The simple fact of the matter is though, that it is the present day law of the land, and has been for longer than those kids have been alive.
Its impossible for them to plead ignorance.
If they want to change the law, great, I'll support that.
If they want to break the law, and whine about the consequences, frankly whatever their habits, I don't trust them.
Its not that hard to NOT use drugs. And its ludicrous to expect officers of the law to selectively enforce the law.
If someone deserves to be slammed here, aside from the written law itself, its the people to stupid to think there would be no consequences for breaking it.
Robert at May 9, 2008 10:31 PM
Radwaste -
DuWayne, you're inventing things, not relating my position. I'm just trying to wake the brain-dead, apparently all a-twitter about being able to light up in front of some guy with a badge, and show that there is real work to do.
No, your assuming that those of us who are apparently brain dead, haven't thought about the implications. I think your mistaking the legalization crowd, for the decriminalization crowd. It's not like I'm interested in flipping a switch and saying "poof!" it's not illicit any more, have fun!
I understand that there is real work to do and I want to see it happen. As much as the liberty aspect of it, more important than the financial benefits, legalization would do a lot to further research into addiction and dependency. It would pave the way for fresh approaches to recovery and prevention.
Again: in just one situation, if you want "legalization", you must realize that employers with critical positions must then be provided with impairment measurement techniques or be exempted from laws stating that the subject drug's use is acceptable.
We already have the ability to deal with that now. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean that someone has to employ you if you use drugs. If it were possible to reasonably test for alcohol after it has run it's course, it would be easier to enforce no drinking policies. And such things exist, especially for extremely sensitive positions. SO that's one problem taken care of off the bat.
You can use tobacco or alcohol as examples of the distribution and regulation of any drug; you can use OTC medication as your model. All of these are regulated, even as they are in some cases public health disasters.
And alcohol prohibition wasn't? It was far, far worse. It didn't stop the drinking, it just drove it underground and created a massive black market. The violence that was associated with black market hooch was remarkable and it was a singular factor in bringing organized crime to a prominence it enjoyed for decades after.
Drug prohibition is much of the same. And just because the power brokers in the illicit drug trade don't have the massive power base in the U.S. doesn't mean they aren't there. They just control easier targets, like Columbia and huge swaths of many other countries, including Mexico.
Where the illicit drug trade raises it's head, you are dealing with unpredictable elements at best. At worse your dealing with a very ugly world that is marginalized even further from society because it's illicit nature. There is no stability to illicit transactions, not even the pretense of one. This adds an element of inherent mistrust, with mind altering drugs on top of it.
Heh. You brought up guns. You really don't want to go there in regulations - your pot smokers will be positively ID'd and each sale approved by the FBI, and dealers would be subject to no-notice inspection by the BATF (during regular business hours.
Actually, there are drugs that I wouldn't mind seeing a very tight rein on, LSD being at the top of the list. I actually wouldn't mind seeing a requirement that the person taking it has to register and either use a facility set aside for the use of those drugs (where there would be people who are trained to deal with people on these sorts of drugs, to act as baby-sitter/security guards) or be accompanied by someone who is sober and capable of dealing with you. Some other drugs might just require even harsher measures or possibly even flat out prohibition (PCP comes to mind). There does come a point where there is too much risk to the public at large, regardless of the person taking it. Although if they want to sit in a rubber cell and sign a fatality waiver that can be made to stick - heh?
the American public has already shown us what it does when allowed, so if you're going to allow another drug into the market, you have to do some work to make sure of the actual effects of your action.
And I don't have a problem with that. There are a lot of people who actually work in addiction research who feel exactly the same way. There are people who understand this better than either of us do, who are all about making legalization work and make it a net positive for public health.
It is increasingly obvious that the current paradigm is an abysmal failure. In the public health sector it's just patchwork, with minimal results. Where they're working the best, addiction treatments have double digit recidivism. Now I suspect that is in part because most treatment options are based on reliance on a higher power, in a decreasingly religious society. But it is also affected by the inherent distrust of many drug addicts.
What THC concentration is legal?
Any. There is a threshold before 100% pure and while it is exceptionally powerful, it's not unreasonable. Extreme concentrations would be prohibitively expensive for regular use, they certainly are now. They would also include a warning about the potency.
What kind of things may coke be cut with?
Pharmaceutical fillers, unless it is being purposefully mixed with something else and is labeled such.
How strong can heroin be?
Honest to gods, I am not, and though I have tried it, I never have been a heroin guy. So I can't begin to talk about potency and toxicity. But there are people who know plenty about that, you know, sciency types who research this stuff. They do know and could tell you.
What warnings will be on what packaging?
That would depend on the drug. Different drugs carry different risks and different likelihoods for addiction. I am also very keen on better drug education in public schools, with honest risk assessments. Of course that would also require teaching kids to really grasp what the statistics mean - i.e. even one percent means that there are seven or eight people in my graduating class who were affected, twenty eight to thirty in the whole school.
Harm reduction through legalization is not all that radical a concept in the field of addiction and drug abuse. There are certainly people in the field who disagree with the idea, possibly even a majority. But there is no question that the interest in and research into harm reduction through legalization is growing. The driving force being that there is no question the current paradigm is a complete and utter failure.
DuWayne at May 9, 2008 11:19 PM
Robert -
I think it's obvious that I am dead against prohibition laws. I don't have much sympathy for any of these kids, in spite of the fact - mostly because, there was a time I tried to play that game too. It's ugly and it's criminal.
DuWayne at May 9, 2008 11:23 PM
All please note that while DuWayne has started to answer some of the issues related to legalization, the process itself is far more extensive. Every product for commercial sale in the USA is subject to production standards which are spelled out in regulations and covered by law.
So far as mechanisms for detecting impairment, though, none exist of practical use to an employer for many drugs now illegal which some wish to legalize, and laws will need to address that.
Radwaste at May 10, 2008 8:17 AM
"In this context, no they don't. Just as their feelings don't count if I decide one day to run off and never see any of them again. Just as their feelings don't count if I decide to shoot myself in the head. Just as their feelings don't count if I drink myself to death. Just like their feelings don't count if I decide eat myself to death."
Got it. To hell with everyone else, you got your high and that's all that counts. There's independence and then there's plain old selfishness.
Nice try with the ADHD ruse. Sorry, but you don't get an excuse for not giving a damn about the impact of your behavior on the people in your life. As a rational person, you either decided to not care and accept responsibility for that decision, or you were forced into that position because you refuse to face up to your role in doing some damage to others.
If someone can divorce themselves from any feelings for the impact of their actions on others, what does that make them? Emancipated Objectivist, liberty-loving Libertarian, or just narcissistic?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 10, 2008 8:52 AM
Radwaste -
So far as mechanisms for detecting impairment, though, none exist of practical use to an employer for many drugs now illegal which some wish to legalize, and laws will need to address that.
Bullshit. Employers send employees to clinics all the time when they get hurt, to be drug tested.
DuWayne at May 10, 2008 9:35 AM
Gog -
Got it. To hell with everyone else, you got your high and that's all that counts. There's independence and then there's plain old selfishness.
I'm not trying to say that it isn't selfish and a horrible way to treat others, I'm only saying that doing so shouldn't be illegal.
Nice try with the ADHD ruse. Sorry, but you don't get an excuse for not giving a damn about the impact of your behavior on the people in your life.
Not asking for one, as I carefully consider the impact of my actions on my family and loved ones. But again, being a vile asshole to the people around us should not be illegal. Unless you honestly think that all the shite I listed should be illegal, making drug abuse a special circumstance is ridiculous.
If someone can divorce themselves from any feelings for the impact of their actions on others, what does that make them? Emancipated Objectivist, liberty-loving Libertarian, or just narcissistic?
Complete and utter narcissistic asshole. Christ Gog, I'm not advocating for drug abuse or being a vile asshole to one's loved ones. I am just arguing that using it as an excuse to keep drugs illegal is ridiculous.
When your ready to make it illegal for people to cause others around them emotional distress, I'll buy this argument as consistent.
DuWayne at May 10, 2008 9:48 AM
The simple fact of the matter, is that whatever the impact on the lives of those around us, whether those things count to us as individuals or not, and if so, to what degree, that all falls under the perview of the individual.
If a man chooses to disregard the pain of loved ones and end his own life for whatever personal reasons he may have, it is his choice, foolish or selfish it may be, but his life is his in an independent culture.
If he chooses to light up and go to jail to be a girlfriend to a guy named Molly, his choice.
This is not to say that we ought to respect that individual, hell such a person, who seeks his own pleasure or comfort to the detriment of those who love or depend upon him, deserves the DEEPEST level of contempt that can be heaped upon their worthless hide.
However freedom means the ability to make choices, choices may be good or bad, selfish or selfless, noble or base, destructive or constructive, or they may be simply one of those shades of grey which is neither one nor the other in whole.
The point is that those choices must belong to that individual, to all of us AS individuals, or we cannot call ourselves a free people. Our present asset siezure laws are unjust, as are our drug laws, the product of paranoia, myth, and fear, not conducive to a free environment, these things must change.
But none of those things will change because of reckless violation of the law by pleasure seeking hedonistic reckless fools, however wrong the law, it is wrong to blame simply those who enforce it, for doing their jobs. Instead press the legislature to make the changes that would make life safer for those who enforce the law, and provide the citizens under it with that much more liberty.
Robert at May 10, 2008 9:53 AM
Robert, DuWayne, I'm not arguing that emotionally harming other people should be illegal. Let's put that red herring between two slices of pumpernickel and call it lunch and be done with it.
I'm arguing that legalizing hard drugs is going to cause far more problems than keeping them illegal.
I agree, the current system is insane. Dealers are making billions, the cops are out of control with the seizure laws, too many users end up destroyed financially due to addiction or incarceration.
So what's the solution? Create a society of dopers who are too wasted to give a damn? Wall us up inside our own borders? Keep doing what isn't working?
I know that nothing is perfect, I know that we are all responsible for ourselves, but I'd love to hear some solutions that don't end up with thousands of new addicts running around -- or locked up and bankrupt.
End rant.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 10, 2008 10:50 AM
Gog -
I'm arguing that legalizing hard drugs is going to cause far more problems than keeping them illegal.
How? There is a large segment, possibly a majority of the addiction/dependency professional community who believe that legalization would make dealing with addiction and dependency more effective. Taking the inherent distrust of drug users out of the equation would make it easier to help them.
...but I'd love to hear some solutions that don't end up with thousands of new addicts running around -- or locked up and bankrupt.
Do you honestly believe that there are thousands, or hundreds of thousands out there who never try drugs simply because it's illegal? Are people going to turn around and say to themselves; "Gosh, now that crack is legal, I think I'm going to go try it - fuck the risks it entails?"
Education not prohibition.
DuWayne at May 10, 2008 10:59 AM
"Do you honestly believe that there are thousands, or hundreds of thousands out there who never try drugs simply because it's illegal?"
I have no idea what anybody else's interior monologue is saying to them.
What I'm saying is that given the evidence we have that human beings of all ages love to get high, and our record of very few people handling addictive substances well, would we be doing ourselves a service or a disservice to have Smacky McCrackhead's Drive-Thru Tweakertorium open in every city?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 10, 2008 3:35 PM
Gog -
Actually, there are plenty of people who even now handle those addictive substances just fine and never have a problem with it. To become chemically dependent on even heroin requires sustained use over a period of time.
The major service that legalization would provide society, from a public health standpoint, would be the lessening of the paranoia that surrounds drug use and attempts to seek help. It would also open up the doors to new and improved methods of dealing with dependency.
Too, it would make research into addiction and how to deal with addiction easier. Having the ability to actually provide controlled doses under clinical conditions would be a huge. Not to mention getting involved in experiments with time release, "maintenance" doses of drugs with higher dependency rates. I.e. a dose that doesn't really get the person high, rather it keeps the worse of the withdrawal symptoms at bay.
I think that the key point that is driving a lot of people in public health in this direction, is the fact that the current paradigm, a couple of years shy of it's thirtieth anniversary, is a complete and abysmal failure. The notion of decriminalization isn't a reasonable alternative, as it would leave things largely unregulated. Legalization and strict regulation makes the most sense at this point.
DuWayne at May 10, 2008 4:32 PM
"Bullshit. Employers send employees to clinics all the time when they get hurt, to be drug tested."
Wonderful. You've just justified personal injury as supporting your argument in some way. In case the finer points of argument have been lost on you, you have just Socratically inverted your position.
Preventing personal injury is the major issue where I work. Personal assurance programs test everyone handling fissile material and weapons for a variety of drugs. Now, you claim that it is just fine to detect substance abuse after it has surfaced in a workplace accident.
Nope. That's unacceptable. If you want legalization, you will not achieve it by telling legislators you'll test the dead body for drugs.
Radwaste at May 10, 2008 7:48 PM
Radwaste -
Today, right now, people are randomly tested at work. They take pre-employment drugscreens. They get tested if they are injured. And I agree, it's a problem. People still get through it. Legalization isn't going to do anything to make it better either. OTOH, it's not going to make it any worse.
Again, if you have a better idea I would love to hear it. Because I think we're both aware that the s
DuWayne at May 10, 2008 9:14 PM
Sorry, I have no idea why it posted mid-word. that should have finished;
Because I think we're both aware that the status quo isn't working and isn't going to work.
DuWayne at May 10, 2008 9:15 PM
Will making serious drug legal increase their use or not...that IS a valid question, and one which has an answer we can only debate hypothetically, and of course with comparison to nations which do do legalize their use.
Will some people simply refuse to use these substances because they are illegal? Yes, plenty of people follow the law solely because it IS the law. This is probably a substantially greater number than those who refuse to do so for the same reason.
Now, lets consider the why of this one before we proceed.
If we presume that both groups of people will accept or reject a percieved authority wholly on the basis of whether or not such authority exists or not, then we can reasonably presume that majorities of both groups will react in the same way towards cultural preferences, norms, and customs. Those who follow the law, also follow in line with the culture at large. While those who reject the law & look to defy it, will do the same to their culture.
If that is reasonable supposition, then we can likewise presume that the group of law abiding persons, even in the event of a change in the law, will not pursue drug use because of the cultural stigma that is attached to its use. We can then also assume that the second group, will continue use, precisely because of that stigma. We can of course assume that there will be a part of each group which will change their course of action based on legalization...but at the end of all this the question of usage increase is purely hypothetical as it was when I began my little rant.
However, IF said substances were legalized, and their production regulated, we can presume that several benefits would be derived immediately.
A. A reduction in the rate of incarceration.
B. An increase in available enforcement resources for serious crimes. (Lets face it, damage we do to ourselves is not a serious crime set against the damage we can do to each other)
C. An increase in tax base for the state as legalized substances are of course...taxed.
D. Increase in treatment ability as taxes are used to both discourage use & treat those who abuse.
E. A decrease in medical costs due both the reduced hazard of substances by regulatory efforts & offset by taxation of those same substances.
Right now the current legal system is overburdened, the medical treatment system is haphazard, the cost to law enforcement in blood & money is well above acceptable levels, and the black market for the substances in question fund vast numbers of illegal organizations and activities, essentially providing a resource to those who prey upon the honest and hard working, rather than to the government setup to protect the honest & industrious.
That is the plainest simplest truth. Will use increase with legalization, my gut says yes, will it increase dramatically? Probably not, not as long as there is a cultural stigma attached to it. It would probably end up like alcohol, acceptable to all as long as it is used in moderation, but those who abuse it, held in contempt.
Robert at May 11, 2008 8:20 AM
Leave a comment