View Full Version : John Stosell's Special on ABC
Anyone else fumming over John Stosell's special last night about the War on Drugs?
They kept stating how Europe was the example on how to tolerate drug usage. But the forgot to discuss those countries that consider drug trafficking a capital offense. I'm not aware of a drug problem per se in those countries. Anyone have info on such data? I believe Singapore and China are two countries that allow the death penalty for drug possession, what are the others?
I didn't think Singapore and China had a death penalty for possession, I thought it was for smuggling. Aren't most of the citizens of China users?
I had the opportunity to teach at two Narcotics Seminars in China in 92 and 93. The Chinese police have a policy that they do not have a drug problem in China, period. However, get LE guys together for a few Pabst's and Mao Tai's and things loosen up. They have a serious drug problem, with everything from hashish to heroin. Official policy is to execute "drug traffickers" and they don't make any distinction from someone holding a quantity versus someone selling it. All get the same bullet in the back of the head, and the family is billed the equivilant of $.13 for the round.
Stosell's apologist piece was classic "let's legalize" propaganda. They cite Amsterdam with their great hash bars and no probs. They didn't say that they warn you in 4 languages at the airports and train stations to hold onto your wallet and purse, as there are frequent robberies. By who? Let me guess?
Zurich's infamous Needle Park was a total failure and disgrace and even the tolerent Swiss demanded a cleanup by Swiss LE.
So what if I donated a few thousand dollars to buy some bullets for dealers here....? You think we could get some support for a similar fate in the US?
Yeah, the piece bothered me on so many issues. I kept thinking about the liberal Hollywood elite that insist we save the whales, rainforest, homeless, endangered species...etc...all because it's the "right" thing to do. They want us to take up all guns...because they are bad and they kill people. Hello. What the F*** Over?
I would never advocate legalizing drugs but I sure hope the USA never gets to the point where it uses a "bullet to the back of the head" to punish non violent crimes.
I missed John Stosell's piece but did manage to catch General McCaffrey and NM Governor Johnson on Donahue the other night and it made me sick. Donahue's sympathetic tone towards Johnson's ramblings made my blood boil! I wonder how the "doughboys" of years gone by would feel towards this country giving up the fight in any "war", drugs, terrorism, what have you, and give in to the radical left and their misgivings. It's like giving in to my children when they ask 99 times if they can have the candy that they plant in the check-out line at Wally-World. You stand your ground on the issues and don't give in, no matter how tough the fight. Ask any one person whose life has been affected by drugs if we should just give in and wave the white flag to the "war on drugs".
And if anyone thinks drug trafficking is not laced with violent crime, ask any narc on the street their opinion of that!!!
Of course drug trafficking is associated with violent crime. I would never argue the contrary. But you would have a hard time arguing that all drug dealers commit violent crimes. The ones that do can be punished for the violent crimes they commit. I just object to the viewpoint that all drug dealers should get the death penalty. I'm sure to lose points on this board for admitting this, but years ago, I knew someone who was a marijuana dealer. He was not violent at all. He would never sell to children or to anyone who was likely to sell to children. He bought his pot from a private grower, and I really don't think his activity caused any harm other than lack of productivity among his customers. Should he have been shot in the head? Does Budweiser have the same ethics? Should a bar owner be shot because of the violence associated with alcohol? I don't want to get involved in a huge argument about the morality of drug use/dealing because I agree that it is wrong, I will argue the use of bullets to deal with a symptom of the problem in today's society.
Signal9TN
08-02-2002, 02:23
Hono,
Pot growers, dealers and users commit violent crimes all the time. They resist arrest and assualt and even murder cops to get away. Watch the video of Tropper Coats murder to see how a pot-head does what ever it takes to escape from a minor drug charge. Tell the Troppers family that pot-heads are non-violent.
Drug users commit crimes to pay for the drugs, violent crimes. Terrorist organizations and terrorist states use drug sales to finance their operations.
hono...your MJ acquaintance may not have sold to children. But I bet the people that bought from him did. Buy a few ounces, cut it up a little and market it. What's the harm? And if he brought directly from the grower for personal use, then he continues to support a grower who sells to a lot of people, in quantity, without caring where it goes.
People with this "MJ is OK" attitude continue the cycle of drugs and drug dealing in this country. Yes, there are MJ dealers who've been cool, made a million and are members of the community.
There are also those that have murdered, tortured and maimed in furtherance of their business.
This is a law enforcement forum and I would remind you that some outstanding police officers have met their death at the hands of MJ traffickers.
We're not talking bullets in the head here. The US has a democratic form of government and we don't advocate capital punishment for these offenses. But to argue that they are harmless activities is to hide your head in the sand.
If you're not on the job yet, talk to someone who is. If you ARE in law enforcement, you should know better.
Thanks Paul,
I'm glad you saw my point. I only jumped in this thread when I read the following:
"Cost of the bullets
So what if I donated a few thousand dollars to buy some bullets for dealers here....? You think we could get some support for a similar fate in the US? "
Everyone who took offense or misinterpreted my post:
I do not believe that MJ use/dealing is "okay" and I completely agree that there is a huge problem with drugs and the associated violence in the US. I brought up my drug dealer "friend" as an example of someone who dealt drugs and did not commit violent crimes. I don't believe he was deserving of capital punishment. I brought up alcohol to point out that there are other activities that are associated with violence that are also not independently deserving of capital punishment.
There is a basic decline in morality in this country that is at the heart of the drug problem as well as many other social problems. Unless that is addressed, I don't think even implemented capital punishment for drug dealing would solve the problem.
Again, I'm not defending drug dealers or arguing that drugs are okay. I object to any rhetoric that would call for capital punishment as a solution to the problem. If the above mentioned activities result in violence, there are already laws on the books to deal with the violent crime, up to and including capital punishment.
The "cost of the bullet" reference was a joke and just that. Anyone who "missed" the punchline hasn't sat at the roll call table and listened to the uniformed masses spew nonsense about how to solve this nation's problems, drugs being one of them. It comes from the weariness of doing a job day in and day out that at times seems futile. I'm sure "Let's shoot the boss" echoes in the halls at the typing pool at Ford Motor Co. from time to time. Does anybody really mean it? Probably not.
Alexander
08-03-2002, 00:27
Orange County, Calif., Superior Court Judge James Gray agrees with Kane. He spent years locking drug dealers up, but concluded it's pointless, because drug prohibition makes the drugs so absurdly valuable. "We are recruiting children in the Bronx, in the barrios, and all over the nation, because of drug money," he says.
Besides luring kids into the underworld, drug money is also corrupting law enforcement officers, he argues.
Cops are seduced by drug money. They have been for years. "With all the money, with all the cash, it's easy for [dealers] to purchase police officers, to purchase prosecutors, to purchase judges," says Oliver, the Detroit police chief.
The violence happens because dealers arm themselves and have shootouts over turf. Most of the drug-related violence comes from the fact that it's illegal, argues Kane. Violence also happens because addicts steal to pay the high prices for drugs.
There's no question that drugs often wreck lives. But the drug war wrecks lives too, creates crime and costs billions of dollars.
Is there an alternative? Much of Europe now says there is.
In Amsterdam, using marijuana is legal. Holland now has hundreds of "coffee shops" where marijuana is officially tolerated. Clients pick up small amounts of marijuana the same way they would pick up a bottle of wine at the store.
The police regulate marijuana sales — shops may sell no more than about five joints worth per person, they're not allowed to sell to minors, and no hard drugs are allowed.
What Amsterdam police did was take the glamour out of drug use, explains Judge Gray. The Dutch minister of health has said, "We've succeeded in making pot boring."
What has been the result of legalizing marijuana? Is everyone getting stoned? No. In America today 38 percent of adolescents have smoked pot — in Holland, it's only 20 percent.
Why not sell drugs like we do alcohol, he says, though maybe with more restrictions. "Let's make it available to adults. Brown packaging, no glamour, take the illegal money out of it and then furnish it, holding people accountable for what they do," he suggests. "These drugs are too dangerous not to control."
Legal drugs — that's a frightening thought. Maybe more people would try them.
Gray says even if they did, that would do less harm than the war we've been fighting for the past 30 years.
The Amsterdam Police enforce a public law that the majority of senior police officers abhor. The Chief will not acurrately report statistics on crime as they show a shocking increase. Tourists are forewarned at the airport and train stations about rip and run robbers, seeking women's handbags. There is an increase in muggings and other violent crime.
Can this be tied to the MJ laws. Not necessarily. But the police are finding out first hand that the relaxing of these laws leads to more "broken windows" to quote James Q. Wilson. It does not help law enforcement, in fact it hurts enforcement efforts.
This is a politically motivated law and the Chief is a political hack.
Oh, it's great for tourists to wander into Amsterdam and have fun shopping for a gram and getting pleasantly stoned in some cafe. Then they return to the States and tell all how cool it was.
Why not ask the victims of Amsterdam's latest crimes how THEY feel about such a great social experiement?
I also strongly disagree with Judge Gray. Locking up drug dealers may seem pointless to him, but not to the mother of some 8 year old in the projects. She knows what the kid has to go through and the pressure growing up. Taking dope dealers off the streets and showing kids that The Life sucks is what law enforcement is all about. Judge Gray can speak for the judiciary, but leave enforcement to the enforcers.
I don't know Gray's bench record, but if some of his colleagues throughout the US spent more time sentencing and less time on liberal social issues, maybe we'd make more progress in the streets.
Jonlaw,
I can understand overstating something out of frustration. I don't know if the Ford analogy works because the workers aren't armed (hopefully) nor do they have authority over their boss. I realize Macleod was probably not serious and I wasn't trying to find fault with him personally for saying what he did. The issue is worth debating because there is a certain segment of the population that would seriously consider using China's method of dealing with drug dealing.
Hono, it wasn't a gut reaction to any "frustration" but rather to remind us of the fact that "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
There may be a segment of society that would go for "a bullet to the head" but I have yet to meet a cop who would stand behind that one. They might say it or nod their head in agreement but these same individuals scream castration at the arrest of a child molester. These are bold statements and, true, often made out of frustration. But they are far from being law and supported by the Law Enforcement community.
While we are at it, let's thank the Netherlands for reminding us all to "chill" on some good Chiba and for bringing us that great designer drug we all know and love, yes, you guessed it, Ecstasy!
Jonlaw,
Actually, castration for child molesters sounds fine to me (after conviction).
I am not big on the death penalty. Doesn't cause me to toss and turn as much as say, turn 'em loose judges and parole systems. Actually just not sure I get the point, other than it is comparitively inexpensive and I don't care for that point of view. Certainly don't think systems where they shoot drug dealers are good examples for us. Often systems which have a similar penalty for things like favoring secret ballots and elections.
Don't like what I see of the crack/powder sentencing disparity either. Course, my view on this is crank up the penalty for powder to match.
As I said in the neighboring thread, if your neighborhood pot dealer is a nonviolent dude, the guy right behind him in the food chain more than makes up for it. Let hippie dippy come up a little short on settlement day.
Love the view (he says, sardonically) that because within the narrow framework of a series of transactions there is no applied violence therefore narcotics trafficking is a non-violent enterprise. Its not warm and dark with the fragrance of fertile fields because you are napping in a meadow; it's because you have your head up your ass.
On the Fed side, sentencing guidelines go a long way to making folks stand on their activity and their record and I am a big fan, wish more States would get on board.
Also very cynical about the view that narcotics possession and use is a "victimless" crime. Can't think of a more selfish, middleclass, self-forgiving bunch of claptrap. Guess they never met a crack-ho outside some Victorian fantasy. "I do a little blow on weekends and it's not a problem for me," says some Robert Downey wannabe who is about to flush the wife, the house, the job and the kids. And of course, they must never be accountable for what they fund in Columbia, Mexico, Afghanistan, and the good ol' USA.
Put 'em down? Maybe not. Why not have them do years and years and years of "Make me a license plate, bitch."
ATF-SAC,
I really respect your opinion and your years of experience fighting crime. I am not on the front lines (yet) and my opinion may change once I get there. I am not defending the drug dealers and users activity. I don't believe it is harmless and I have seen first hand the effects of drug use/abuse. I've had former good friends steal from me because they were hooked on ice and I've seen kids suffer because their parents are users.
Do you really think that people should be punished for violence that is associated with their activity as opposed to violence for which they are directly responsible? Maybe this is a weak analogy, but should we hold someone responsible for Cuba's human rights violations if they purchase a Cohiba?
I realize that drug users, including college hippies, have a moral culpability for the evil their purchase funds, but how do we punish them for a crime they didn't personally commit? Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that our justice system was designed to punish people for crimes they commited. There are scores of activities, legal and illegal, that are linked to other activities. Does someone who purchases legal pornography know for certain that none of the photographers and others in the industry he supports do not also work in child pornography?
It's not that I don't think drug users, including the occasional pot smoker, don't share in the responsibility for all of the violence associated with drugs, but where do we draw the line?
hono, I keep slipping in and out of legal and moral responsibility in this discussion and no surprise to me I am confusing you or anyone. When I talk about the responsibility of the drug buyer for the violence I am not talking at all about a legal responsibility. Legally, would probably have to show that a person increased their purchases or deliberately overpaid to fund terrorism. On a moral level it's a different thing altogether and yes, the momentary pleasure of a Cuban cigar, with a little thought ,should turn bitter on the tongue. I am not a moral absolutist, heaven knows, but how clear does it have to be that the money that goes to recreational drugs points AK's at our backs?
Paul as always is a wise and open-minded mod and the politicians have had at this issue to a fare thee well.
Having said that, it is worth pondering whether more legal onus on possessors would have had more impact and whether that would have been for good or for ill. I am not talking draconian here, perhaps a consistent nudge. I noted earlier in this thread, that my generation, which found both the joys of psychedelia and the vote within a few years sort of made the pols take a hands off approach. We have this interesting view of good guy users and bad guy suppliers. Very confused and it shows, but not likely to change.
Maybe it's just an ATF-centric view of the world. Funny thing is about Prohibition is that as bad a failure as it was legally and socially, some studies indicate that at the end it was sort of achieving its goal of reducing the rate of drinking in the country.
Another funny thing was although everybody views the moonshiners through the '60's as somewhere between Snuffy Smith and Thunder Road, they took us to second on the all time murdered in the line of duty slot for Feds behind our dear friends in the USMS, who we spotted a hundred year head start and the settlement of the territories.
Oh well, Philosopy in the afternoon. Day to day is easier. The laws were passed under our Constitution and our elected reps and our courts do their thing. Got no personal beef with doing my job that would cause me to turn in the tin or become a militia Generalisimo. Break the law and I will see that my folks do what they should to hold you accountable.
Obviously this is a complex issue with no easy solution. In Hawaii, increased eradication of marijuana crops have resulted (cause and effect, or just changing appetites-who knows?) in a huge problem with the readily available "batu" or ice. I don't believe in legalizing something just because there is a demand anymore than I give my kids something just because they whine but I would much prefer a bunch of stoners over the ice addicts.
As I mentioned before, I think that drug abuse is a symptom and focusing law enforcement efforts on the symptom rather than the disease (lack of morality) is never going to solve the problem. How do we cure the disease? I don't know what maxim Paul was referring to but don't all laws legislate morality? The question is who's morality? We have a society that believes that truth is relative and that each individual can decide what's right or wrong. Of course the relativists all would object to my self determined right decision to steal their car.
You're right ATF SAC, philosophy in the afternoon...day to day is easier!
hono: I don't believe that MJ eradication has caused the batu problem in Hawaii. It is the constant search and peer pressure for the new "ultimate" high. Onset of duration for ice is a great deal longer than MJ, ingestion is easier, especially in nightclubs and the Philippines, which started the whole ice thing, is not that far away for smuggling purposes.
We've seen these drug-style modifications all through the US and Europe. Drugs of choice shift, and usually to the more easily and covertly ingested drugs. People move from MJ, to MJ laced with PCP (caviar) to heroin and to ice...in search of a new high, etc.
Actually, the best take on civic morality and the law I have heard recently was in a speech by the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court. To paraphrase, he said "How dare we lower ourselves to live by the law." His point was that the obedience of the law alone does not make our actions right or responsible. Indeed, the law is only a guard against our basest actions, those things that we commonly agree are too injurious and threatening to allow for the safety of all of us.
I am inclined to agree. In what appears to be a more litigious and rights based civic dialogue, I think we are making the mistake of treating legal as the standard of good.
That in no means says that we should raise the law to police morality, but someone's right to an opinion does not bar my right to say that person is an idiot. That a lot of mj folks in NORML are arguing that efforts to stem illegal narcotics are attempts to legislate "morality" seems to me self-excusing on their part. Again, excusing a little youthful experimentation is no biggie for me or for our business; the concept that this whole criminal enterprise is ok because they want to get loaded is not.
I wait every day for NAMBLA to argue that pederasty in the clergy is a protected freedom of religion thing and that we are legislating morality when we charge pederasts with child abuse.
Actually, I don't have to wait for the second part, they already argue that.
Which brings us to the famous Bismark quote: "Those who love democracy and sausage would do well to stay away from the places in which they are made."
ATF SAC, I think the Chief Justice may have been echoing the sermon on the mount. Remember, what good is it to obey the letter of the law if your heart is wicked?
Paul, the problem with using the majority's moral standard is that sometimes the majority is wrong. Unless our laws are based on a higher standard, then the majority can always legislate evil.
Dmclark, you're probably right. I think even passing out free joints downtown wouldn't solve the ice problem now. That is one drug where the violence is seldom far removed from the user.
hono, I think the CJ meant a sort of civic morality/civility although clearly he would not have skipped personal integrity.
I would concur that "community standards" to borrow a phrase is not the place to do a lot of legislating. Tyranny of the majority is an issue as well. Kind of why our government is designed to be as slow and cumbersome and deliberative as possible.
Are some then arguing the case that the use of certain drugs by an individual, no matter the degree of personal and societal injury, are matters of personal moral choice which should be free of governmental restriction and legal sanction? If so, what about the sanctions civil and criminal that exist for alcohol, tobacco, and even, as edd1e22 posits firearms (I should add fatty foods, just so it doesn't look like home cookin')? Can we get beyond panacea like philosopy , "and then all bad things go away" and see a framework based on our real experience where things work better?
There are huge problems with these kinds of issues, many of which lead to dark choices. For example, the good Mr. Clark and other old DEA hands can recite litanies of our problems with our special friends just south of the Rio Grande. Yet as an old CIA hand lectured me in my young ATF days, as a matter of national security, who was I to think that the US was ever going to shut the border to illegal immigration and narcotics and let us live with what boiled up in the pressure cooker of Mexico without the release of the people to here and the dollars to there?
There would seem to be "realpolitik" constraints here.
Perhaps Paul, with all respect, it is not the politicians. Perhaps they are only an accurate reflection of who we have become, after all they often pander shamelessly to what most of us would vote for.
I for one have a panacea-like fantasy on this issue. What if all the young folks stretching their wings or afraid to buck the tide who are trying grass said, "I can take it or leave it alone, but I will not support the people who are profiting from it, therefore count me out." A 21st Century T Party.
Gee ATFSAC, just when my blood pressure resembles something normal, you go and bring up relations with our Special Friends down South, AND the interesting international relationship we have with our Friends from Langley.
Both issues are enough to cause my eyes to film over.
I too was told, not too many years ago, by a CIA Chief of Station that THEIR mission and OUR LE mission was usually in opposition and they would violate ANY law to accomplish their mission. Be it importing tons of drugs or cases of weapons. They don't HAVE an LE mission. Important for all the new internationalists in LE to remember.
As for Mexico...we can do days. After scores of TDYs and a three year assignment to DF, plus being on the first OPR Op Leyenda team investigating Kiki's murder, I've seen all I want to see.
I've been through new agencies, new Directors, new governments and "new" attitudes. Funny thing, it's deja vu all over again! (Sorry Yogi)
The problem with all this is that we are geared up in The G to wallow in the same problems year after year. The programs are geared towards us not having any institutional knowledge after X years, so we can repeat our mistakes, history be damned. Forget about costs.
OK, I'm going to take that pill now. DM
Sorry to do that to you, DM. Thought it time to broaden the discussion even more beyond, what "I want to do and what I want to be acceptable and what I think should happen." Hard, dark and dangerous world out there and not just between the forces of good and evil, but in those worlds.
Some facts to add if we are not all talked out on this one (getting there myself). Latest reliable surveys say 4.5 million homes in the USA report there is someone living there who would benefit from drug treatment. Drug consistently number 1 or two? Survey says marijuana. There is a generational difference here. Those of us in the wide lapel, big striped slacks, and spinnaker ties generation dealt with mj at an average THC level or around 1%. Average today 12%. No wonder hospital admissions for mj are increasing dramatically. The folks who grow it and engineer it and profit from it are happy you enjoy the experience; but in their ideal world you would need it. Peace, man.
Negotiate This
09-24-2002, 01:08
This is an interesting discussion. Actually, I am in the middle of a book entitled "Drug Crazy" (author unknown), published in 1998, that I am finding to be extremely enlightening on the so-called "war on drugs."
One of the most interesting anecdotes in the book tells the story of a young, single-mother heroin addict in Liverpool, England in the mid-1970's. This woman was your garden-variety basket case: absolutely desperate, a prostitute, and rapidly destroying the life of her young child. She would turn tricks, steal, threaten, mug, and basically do whatever she had to do to get her fix.
Almost out of the blue, a rumor circulated in the Liverpool drug underground that there was a doctor who would actually prescribe pure heroin or cocaine to anyone whom he thought fit the bill of an addict, based on his medical opinion. Basically, the hardcore addicts could essentially legally "buy" their drugs from the doctor--often times cheaper than what they were buying it for out on the street.
The rumor turned out to be the truth. The single mother (whose name I forgot) learned about this and sought out the doctor, who prescribed her heroin. Eventually, the woman reported that the simple fact there was a steady, reliable, safe, and legal supply of drugs available caused her to quit prostitution, enroll her kid in school, and essentially return to a semi-functional life. She and hundreds of the doctor's other patients reported that they eventually had simply "outgrown" their addictions, an effect that the doctor had predicted.
Anyhow, the study of this anomalous event in the drug culture has become known as the "Liverpool Study" and is apparently well known among people who study the drug problem.
The fascinating aspect of this story is that this study, and studies like it, frequently get quashed here in the U.S. because conservative politicians equate them with pro-legalization movements.
Personally, I am opposed to drug trafficking. But I am also opposed to legalization. What I am in favor of are sensible public policies, exercised by responsible medical officials, as evidenced in the above example.
I think it's high time everyone realized that law enforcement isn't the only answer. It is an important and very essential piece of the equation, but not the answer.
NT
Well, my penny on this is that I agree that treatment and education are undervalued here in the US. Of course, like prison rehabilitation it is more a goal we strive to than anything we can prove we are getting anywhere with. However, let's say my mind could be opened to the concept that approved formulations of narcotics could be dispensed with medical supervision to persons with drug abuse diseases. I question a bit the ethics of maintaining an addiction rather than curing it, but isn't that methadone?
From a societal point of view maybe we could change the view of an addicted person from depraved crack ho to significantly challenged person worthy of pity but not unqualified trust. Seems to me that avoiding that stigma and otherwise appearing to function as an average (I know, I know-throw me a bone here) person, keeps a lucrative black market going. That black market is the target of law enforcement for oh so many viable reasons and would still be there.
That said, I have to admit that I turn off personally all calls for war on anything but military enemies (includes non-State terrorist organizations). It does not add to the struggle to call it a war and it implies something that does not exist, unconditional expense and sacrifice by the society as a whole. Plus, with all the users in the middle, hard really to see them as the enemy to be attacked without mercy. Doesn't mean they lack responsibility for what they do, just kind of lost souls somewhere.
Negotiate This
09-24-2002, 21:15
Originally posted by ATF SAC
...However, let's say my mind could be opened to the concept that approved formulations of narcotics could be dispensed with medical supervision to persons with drug abuse diseases. I question a bit the ethics of maintaining an addiction rather than curing it, but isn't that methadone?
One other point that I neglected to mention about the "Liverpool Study" is that the overall cost of maintaining the addictions was negligible when compared to the social and economic costs to society in terms of law enforcement, lost productivity, social services, incarceration, and everything else. Yes, it did get expensive over time to maintain this program, but compared to the factors I listed above, it was complete and unequivocal "chump change." This was proven to a degree when crime statistics from the Liverpool area were compared to those elsewhere in England with no such "maintenance" program in place. From top to bottom, from property crime to prostitution to murder, the crime rate in Liverpool dropped dramatically.
Thatcher's conservatives ultimately killed the program, and all the problems returned. Interestingly enough, a very large percentage of the former addicts who had been helped with this program never relapsed.
...From a societal point of view maybe we could change the view of an addicted person from depraved crack ho to significantly challenged person worthy of pity but not unqualified trust. Seems to me that avoiding that stigma and otherwise appearing to function as an average (I know, I know-throw me a bone here) person, keeps a lucrative black market going. That black market is the target of law enforcement for oh so many viable reasons and would still be there.
I have to agree with you there. I tend to believe that even if sensible policies were enacted, such as those I discussed, there would still be a black market problem here in the U.S. because there is an entrenched group of people out there who make a good living keeping this crap flowing into the country. The drug business in this country is so huge it's staggering. I heard a story once where a neighborhood gang was making so much money, it had to actually employ someone to keep the three round-the clock shifts of dealers, lookouts, enforcers, etc. paid in cash. I laughed when I heard that. A street gang with its own little "human resources" department?!
My point is that the very fact of the existence of stuff like this pretty much guarantees that there will still be illegal activity, no matter what is done. I still believe, though, that the U.S. needs to revise its drug control strategy.
Good stuff, my friend. Good conversation. Guess my point is that one of the cultural differences between us and the Mother Country (at least one of them, US kind of unique in the number of Mothers) is our over riding and glorious sense of the individual as valuable and worthy and capable of rising above their lot or station in life. Isn't maintaining addicts, no matter how cost effective, sort of writing off the goal of detox and rehab and a better shot at a life, essentially writing off the person?
I just got through reading everybodys post. It was very interesting. After reading everything, my only question is this.
Where do we send our monetary donations for the bullets?
To the People's Republic of China.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.