Blatham - you're right. There are, and have been, many countries for many centuries producing drugs or the makings for same. Colombia was the country discussed in that Lehrer report, so that's the one I brought up.
So that leads me to consider a broader aspect. When we discuss drugs, we normally discuss things like heroin, crack, etc. But what of all the other addictive stuff that's out there that's dignified by whatever name the pharmaceutical company producing it has bestowed upon it? If one beomes addicted to a purple pill which costs far more than it should, isn't that a problem too? Marijuana is considered by many to be a great nausea easer for chemo patients, for example. Yet - it can be confiscated. probably because almost anyone can grow it and not have to pay a high price for it?
I remember one day my younger daughter came home from school all upset. Seems the teacher had asked if any in the class had a parent(s) who used drugs. My daughter said her mother had tried marijuana, and she was the only one in the class who had a mother who did that. I told her she was probably the only one whose mother had told her. (She, incidentally, turned out to be the straightest arrow I have ever known.)
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I don't think "War on Drugs" is constructive. It hasn't worked - ever - so maybe a new way of looking at it might be helpful.
I agree with the position of the letter as you have stated it. When the prosecution of ANY law wreaks more havoc on society than the behavior the law intends to prevent, we need to reconsider the law.
I do not claim to have the answer to the problem, but I am convinced it lies somewhere outside the area within which our government has assumed it will be found. It is as though they sat down and said, "Okay, we are going to do whatever it takes to solve this problem, except for the following: ...". Well, what if the actual solution is hidden somewhere within that place they refuse to go? What if some level of decriminalization combined with realistic education programs and assistance for addicts who seek it would result in fewer problems for society than either doing nothing or doing what we are doing now?
I do not use drugs. I do not want to use drugs. But if you do want to, I would far rather not have children shooting each other for the right to sell them to you.
Though I have some ideas, I honestly do not know what to do, but I am absolutely convinced that what we are doing, is not a solution. It is just another problem.
trespassers - that's part of my problem with it too. Aside from my experiments with marijuana, I have never used anything coming under the category of drugs. So I can't speak with any authority about them. Nor do we have, to the best of my knowledge, any family problem with that, either.
There may not be any answer. Maybe the use of drugs is just plain there, and much depends on definitions. Steroids for athletes, ritalin to keep active children under control. On the other hand, insulin for diabetics...how do we define the whats, wheres, hows? What seems to work, mostly, is the 12-step program AA, dealing with alcoholism. So what, actually, makes that work? Part of it has been the education of the public. Or maybe we have stressed all the downpoints to where they become meaningless.
Throwing tons of money in a situation doesn't seem to help very much, unless it is for the election of Congress. Who then go on to discuss and determine the throwing of tons of money at the war on drugs.
12 Step Programs are also available for cocain users and other specific drugs including a general narcotics program. Judges routinely assign meetings as part of a rehab approach instead of jail and in California, a more stringent rehab program including medical, recovering and half-way houses.
The drug purveyors are the same kind of mobsters of Prohibition but perhaps even more insidious. Why the government can't break into more of these operations is likely because they are broken up into small, independent groups such as gangs and left to local law enforcement to handle. They are very stealthy. I don't believe we have the will to win a drug war abroad as too many countries depend on drug production. We put on a good show but I don't see a really sincere commitment. It seems to just get the CIA into more trouble and more bad PR and whether it's fair or not, contributes to the image of the U.S. as a bully.
One thing is certain; criminalizing drugs ensures that those desirous of acquiring same will ensure positive cash flow for the distributing criminals. The biggest "LOSER" in any effective decriminalization likely would be Organized Crime.
Oh, wait a minute ... the burgeoning industry of building new prisons would take a nasty hit too ...
timber
well yeah but there are so many politicians that have framed their platforms on "fighting drugs" that they might actually have to come up with a meaningful campaign platform.
timber
That is a good point (privately owned prisons). One can imagine the lobbying those boys do to keep drugs criminalized.
I would expect also (correct me here if you think I guess incorrectly) that particularly before Iraq, the military have had a useful situation with the drug war to put men and machinery into the field for testing and continued readiness. I'm suggesting a voice here against a changed policy though likely not a unanimous one.
Other policies have been applied elsewhere. In England, heroin is availble legally for addicts. Other European countries too have programs in place which decriminalize or allow open use. Given a bit more time, I'll dig up the data on these and their wins/losses.
To imagine The Military uninterested in opportunity to "Shake out The Bugs" would be disingenuous in the extreme. Concepts and equipment are tested and notes are taken, I assure you. That such opportunity be presented at little real risk or cost of major involvement, and yet not be charged to the Training and Development Budget is a wonderful bonus to the folks with all the shiny buttons and multi-colored decorations.
The question of rationalizing drug laws has been answerd unevenly, I fear, and with little notable success. Much is to be done. The issue will be around a while.
timber
A couple of things in the article stand out to me:
Quote: ... Mr. Rosenthal's interests and Oakland's needs matched. By 1998, he was deemed "an officer of the city" under the city's ordinance and was growing thousands of marijuana starter plants at the West Oakland growing facility ...
and
Quote: ... Barbara J. Parker, Oakland's chief assistant city attorney, said the city ordinance was written expressly to give immunity under the federal Controlled Substance Act to people carrying out the ordinance's provisions. Ms. Parker said the immunity was the same kind afforded to police officers and other public officials who enforce laws related to controlled substances.
"The federal government didn't come after the city and say this ordinance can't stand," Ms. Parker said. "They didn't come after the state and say this proposition can't stand. Instead, they are going after individuals. That makes this very difficult" ...
The Bush Administration and The DEA may well find themselves embroiled not in a drug matter, but a major test of Constitutional Law as regards States Rights. From what I have gathered from a TV interview with one of the defense attorneys, this may well be the tack taken by Rosenthal's team, and could take the wind right out of The Federal Sails. I expect this will go all the way to SCOTUS, becoming altogether more involved and very unanticipatedly different from the original intent of The Fed ... which, of course, is not an infrequent occurance.
timber
Quote:The Bush Administration and The DEA may well find themselves embroiled not in a drug matter, but a major test of Constitutional Law as regards States Rights.
Bingo.
And on this, the administration is absolutely in the wrong (in my never-to-be-humble opinion, of course). Further, taking the stance they have on this issue, damages their credibility in arguing for a reduced federal government and greater autonomy for states/reasserting states' rights.
Lots of states' rights hot button issues right now: abortion, euthanasia, medical marijuana -- all issues which run counter to the Supremes' agenda.
