vdem.67: Do You Believe In The War On Drugs?
vdem.67.0: Argues with Jesuits (vsclyne) Thu 22 Jun 00 18:20
I am a conservative-leaning (fiscally) Republican.
I am more or less "live and let live" socially.
I am listening to a report on the "War on Drugs"
and I am moved to ask:
Haven't we yet learned that we can not win a war
of attrition?
vdem.67.1: Argues with Jesuits (vsclyne) Thu 22 Jun 00 18:24
There is an initiative in California that would treat
drug use/addiction as a public health issue rather
than a criminal matter. It would require first and
second offenders for simple drug possession/drug use
convictions to be offered recovery programs rather
than jail. To be eligible, the defendant would have
to have no violent crimes on his/her record and would
have to have been arrested in an incident that did not
involve a related violent crime (including burglary).
I support this initiative wholeheartedly.
Am I all alone?
vdem.67.2: Christopher W Hafey (chris) Fri 23 Jun 00 05:27
That's very different from saying it's not the court's
business, right? It's just a new 'punishment' but it
carries consequences -- a hybrid law, more or less,
that marries the health issue with the legal one.
Anyway, it sounds appropriate, Shannon.
vdem.67.3: Eric Rawlins (woodman) Fri 23 Jun 00 08:02
To be picky, World War I was a war of attrition, so it's definitely possible
to win one, though it's a hard slog always.
I would restate your thesis that one cannot win a war against a fundamental
human desire.
While Chris may be correct about what the initiative actually does (I know
little about it), I think its passing would be a *major* step toward
dismantling the War on Some Drugs, because it alters the mindset toward drug
use by officially introducing the phrase "health problem". The WOSD is very
reminiscent of the Loyalty Oath craze in _Catch-22_ in that it is kept in
motion largely by the fact that people in power fear to say what everybody
already knows. I sometimes think all it would take would be for one public
figure not perceived as a left-wing ideologue (Janet Reno would do nicely,
for instance) to stand up and say, "The WOSD accomplishes nothing but the
imprisonment of a huge mass of non-violent drug users, and the furtherance of
a police state. It should stop now."
vdem.67.4: Chuck Charlton (chuck) Fri 23 Jun 00 10:31
I believe that the initiative in California will stimulate a debate that has
been dormant for too long. I believe that the WOSD has done, in the
aggregate, more harm than good at this point, and that changes are urgently
needed. I'm not sure if this initiative is the best thing, but it is quite
likely a good thing. I expect a lot of ideologues on the authoritarian side
to muster a really big vote against the initiative, and I don't expect it to
pass, but I expect that it will open a lot of eyes.
vdem.67.5: Eric Rawlins (woodman) Fri 23 Jun 00 10:52
Exactly. The WOSD has gotten by so far because they have created the
assumption over the last 50 years that drug abuse is a criminal thing (at
least for certain drugs -- abuse of alcohol, Prozac, nicotine, Vicodin, etc.
are still considered health issues). Like most assumptions, the tough part is
getting people to question it in the first place. Once you entertain the
notion that it *might* not be true, the assumption quickly falls. The point
of the initiative, as Chuck says, is to put this issue on the public agenda.
vdem.67.6: Corinne Hawkins (seahawk) Mon 10 Jul 00 15:02
I like Andrew Weil's approach. He says that drugs are a part of every
culture and you can't wipe out their use but that in cultures where they
are integrated into the social fabric there aren't addiction
problems. That seems to be part of the Western "more is better" approach
to happiness. For instance, in South America the leaves used to make
cocaine are chewed unprocessed. My nephew just came back from there and
said they also make a tea from them. No big jolt, but a mild, pleasant
sense of well-being.
If the war on drugs went away the bottom would fall out of the drug
market.
vdem.67.7: Argues with Jesuits (vsclyne) Sun 16 Jul 00 09:13
>If the war on drugs went away the bottom would fall out of the drug
market.<
Yes, that's one of the "loses" in the current lose-lose situation.
We lose because we spend billions ineffectively fighting a war
that we lose again because all we really do is raise the barrier
to entry (threat of jail time) to high we deliver monopoly profits
to anyone willing the take the risk (and the risk is highest for
people at the bottom of the drug importation and delivery system,
the easily replaced addict-retailers). The monopoly profits
come from the artificially high and untaxed prices that in turn
induce more criminal behavior to get the money to pay the price.
I think it's a conspiracy led by the liquor and tobacco lobbies.
vdem.67.8: Eric Rawlins (woodman) Sun 16 Jul 00 14:39
Don't forget the pharmaceutical companies, makers of Zoloft, Prozac, and the
rest.
A lot about the War On Some Drugs becomes clear when you reflect that
marijuana is the only mind-altering drug that is easily growable by anybody,
anywhere and requires no refining, distilling, bottling, or indeed *any*
middle person at all once you have some seeds. Can't have that.
vdem.67.9: Argues with Jesuits (vsclyne) Sun 16 Jul 00 14:42
#8 is another lesson in the economics of government induced
monopoly profits enterprizes. Marijuana would be virtually
*free* were it not for government barriers.
vdem.67.10: marc severino (sev) Sun 16 Jul 00 18:39
You guys are right on target.
vdem.67.11: Christopher W Hafey (chris) Sun 16 Jul 00 18:48
Plus, we make distinctions between doctors prescribing
pharmaceuticals and people self-prescribing hallucinogens,
narcotics, barbituates and the rest. We're a pro-drug
culture, but we advocate taking anonymous little pills
instead of ingesting identifiable, millenial-aged species
of plants 'we grew up with' as early primates.
