This has been rolling around in my mind for awhile, ever since Colorado and Washington rolled out pot laws, and the Federal Government got in conflict with them.
As a Christian, Conservative (kind of), and former GOP Republican... my first thought was No!
As a Sober former alcoholic, and having many addict family, friends, and acquaintances, I'm sensitive to this topic (for and against).
), where a conservative talk radio show host and his former Police Officer/Attorney guest talked about this topic (among others). The attorney's reasoning for keeping drugs off the streets sounded good at first, but after some thought, the reasoning breaks down.
". He talked about how parents leave their children un-attended while they use (child abuse), and other drugs related problems.
The issue is, that everything he said could apply to alcoholics too, for the most part. In some cases an alcoholic could be worse than an addict. It's all relative. And there are already established rules about child and animal care, aside from any drug law.
This movement was fueled by the Temperance Movement. The heart and soul of this movement could be summarized by a quote from a woman I heard on a documentary, filmed during that period:
This is important, we'll come back to that later in this article. The movement was so strong, with majority support, that they did not just pass a single law about this. They actually amended the U.S. Constitution to ban alcohol.
was passed in 1917, ratified in 1920, to ban the sale of all alcohol. The resulting chaos was the sole responsibility of the Government interfering in the market. When the desires of free people were outlawed by the government, illegal enterprises were created in it's place. Crime increased, alcohol use actually increased during this period.
(1933) to the U.S. Constitution was the only amendment to date that repealed a previous Amendment. The sale of Alcohol was no longer banned, but it was heavily regulated, and still is.
Wiki Expounds:
"The War on Drugs" is an American term commonly applied to a campaign of prohibition of drugs, military aid, and military intervention, with the stated aim being to reduce the illegal drug trade.[6][7] This initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by United States President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the "prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted", but that part did not receive the same public attention as the term "war on drugs".[8][9][10] However, two years even prior to this, Nixon had formally declared a "war on drugs" that would be directed toward eradication, interdiction, and incarceration.[11] Today, the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for an end to the War on Drugs, estimates that the United States spends $51 billion annually on these initiatives.[12]
So on we went into the 70's, 80's and 90's waging a war on drugs. Commercials, paid for in part by the government (tax dollars) reminded showed us video of eggs frying in a pan, and told us "
This is your brain on drugs."
So what was the result of this War on Drugs?
Drug used increased over time, exponentially. Illegal organizations, with no oversight or safety measures, rose up to meet demand (Supply/Demand Principles of Free Markets), and the in the dark shadows of secret lives and secret transactions, usage and addiction increased.
Crimes, Violence, Gangs... etc...
We threatened users with jail time, and then we over-filled our jails with users who had committed victim-less crimes (in many, but not all, cases).
Not all the crimes were victim-less though; addiction is a powerful problem, and users have been known to steal (violently in some cases) to get the money they need for their next fix. People have been robbed, and killed, at gun point for just enough money to pay another "dime sack".
One guy I know went down to Mexico, because he thought he could get the drugs cheaper there. That way, he reasoned, he could bring some back to use and some back to sell. Instead, he was robbed at gun point by his would-be dealers, and they stole his car too. He had to take the bus home from Mexico/San Diego, CA area.
The War on Drugs is not working. It's just not. Jails are filling up, police are over worked, neighborhoods are hard to live in (ruled by gangsters) and the police are afraid to enter these neighborhoods.
To make matters worse, the War on Drugs is what it is; but it's not what it seams. It turns out, the real motivation politically may have been less than honorable.
Inverse.com explains the real reason for the war on drugs:
In the new April issue of Harper’s, journalist Dan Baum recalls a 1994 conversation he had with John Ehrlichman (Nixon Advisor), who died in 1999. When Baum asked Ehrlichman about the politics of drug prohibition, the Watergate conspirator waved away his question in favor of bluntness:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Even if this were not true of Nixon (which it sounds like it was), we can see in practice that this war has made life worse for minorities, statistically.
The government used law to coerce and control it's citizens, and deprive them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; all so that the ruling class of the day could keep their power.
Now what? What's next? Can we just END the War on Drugs?
In short yes, we could.
But...
We must consider the intended AND un-intended ramifications of such a drastic shift to the society. We should not remove something that's broken, unless we have something better (or at least understand the possible outcomes, and we're willing to live with those results).
Some countries have realized that this war is failing, costing them money they cannot afford to spend, and they wanted to find another way. Spain and Portugal, in particular, have given it a go (some ten plus years ago).
In 2001, the Portuguese Government tried a dramatic new solution "Decriminalization".
They did not "legalize" drugs, but they did decriminalize them. In essence, users of drugs were not prosecuted, but producers and sellers of drugs still were. The idea was to change the focus. They stopped wasting money jailing users, and channeled those funds into treatment and prevention programs.
The results?
Scientific American as this to say:
Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.
"Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald, a former New York State constitutional litigator, said during a press briefing at Cato last week.
Forbes reports on Portugal's Decriminalization:
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.
The efforts of Portugal give us some hope that we can not only re-think our game plan, but come up with some better ideas for our society.
I'll be honest, as of this writing I'm not sure what those ideas would be. But we can start that conversation by looking at the
Principles we must follow, the possible positive outcomes (
Benefits), and the possible negative outcomes (
Draw Backs), and then start kicking around some ideas.
Crowd Sourcing Intelligence has always been a great idea.
That's why there used be be guilds in centuries past, and Think Tanks today. Even in my day job as an Analyst, I find that bouncing the facts around different people in group discussion reveals risks I hadn't thought of, rewards I hadn't considered, new avenues that never would have crossed my mind.
Two brains are better than One; 1 Million are better than Two alone.
Let's think about this...
Principles
- Liberty of the people must always trump (no pun intended) the desires of the government. We are a nation of free people, free markets, free exchange of ideas. Where the government does not absolutely HAVE to play a role, it should not.
- Government cannot be trusted with power, ever. When the government is given power out of some reasonable necessity, it should be limited and with public oversight. Under no circumstance should a government agency be created that is filled with people who cannot be fired, and have no accountability or oversight.
- Free Market (open competition) with some Regulation (protections for citizens) works best when the government should be involved at some level.
- Light Exposes Darkness (more on this below)
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. Luke 8:17 | New International Version
Drugs are, no argument, bad for people.So are cigarettes and too much alcohol, and McDonald's (most of the time), and Twinkies... you get the idea.
I have a brother (and sister-in-law) who died because of the drugs powerful addictive nature. I am in no way saying that Twinkies and Crack are equivalent. However, I can note that there are some similarities in the nature of human beings to do things that are not beneficial to themselves (or their immediate families). Someone who over-eats and dies early is just as absent for their child as the drug user who died early. The effects can be just as deadly long term.
Drugs take the user to a dark place, a prison, that most want to escape from.
- Illegal things stay in the dark. Hidden.
They can't talk about it openly. Partially due to shame, and partially due to fear of exposure to criminal court systems.
Legal things with no limits can be harmful too.
Legal, but Regulated, things are openly discussed, openly debated, and as with all decisions, best answers from from free and open exchange of ideas.
Just because the courts won't put you in jail for doing drugs, doesn't mean you employer cannot have a policy against drug use (for their own internal safety policy). A police officer, per their policies, could still be required to be drug free as a condition of employment.
Legalizing something does not equal mandatory allowed use. Alcohol is legal today, but many employers ban its use by their employees during working hours. In the case of drugs, that would/could mean, that you could not have it in your system when you wanted to return to work. For some drugs that's longer than the two days weekend.
Who is the Moral Majority? If you are the Moral Majority today, and you tell me I can't do/have something I want; then, I become the Moral Majority tomorrow... can I tell you that I can have it AND you can no longer have something you want (because I'm the NEW Moral Majority).
We need to recognize that we have no rights to force people to change their behavior to fit our standards. We only need to prevent people from harming one another.
Draw Backs
- Legalization could lead to more drug use. That is possible.
- It could lead to more availability, to users who would not have used an unregulated substance.
- It's possible that increased use could lead to an increase in related crimes (robberies to get money for a fix).
Benefits
- Legalization (as in Portugal) could lead to more open discussion, and better programs, and a reduction in use. That's possible.
- The increased open discussion could lead to more controls, safeties, better produced products, safer products, and more recovery programs.
- It could lead to a reduction in crime. Crime operates in a closed market (black market prices).
- Once a market is free, competition causes prices to drop, and quality to rise (for any product).
- Forbes shows that an Overcapacity of Marijuana drove prices down.
- Rob the criminals of the funding, and they'll be starved out of business.
Conclusion
What's the answer for the USA? Who knows. I think a lot of people have great ideas.
- Keeping it illegal to produce, but not illegal to posses could be a good start. We could empty our prisons of non-violent offenders, and spend those resources (public and private) on education and recovery.
- Full legalization, with appropriate regulation (akin to the drinking age for alcohol, and DUI rules) could be worth exploring.
- We need to ask and talk honestly about what could go wrong, and how we could mitigate that risk?
- Just how much of a role does The Government need to play in this at all?
- We could have full legalization, but still have stiffer penalties for crimes committed under the influence (like DUI's). That would nearly remove the government from playing a role, unless someone was actually harmed (or there was a real possibility that someone could have been harmed).
What are your thoughts?
- What did I miss?
- What are the possible benefits?
- Draw backs?
- What are the un-intended consequences Full Legalization could create?
Darrell
