Ending the Failed War on Drugs

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!
User avatar
Dana Sheets
Posts: 2715
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Ending the Failed War on Drugs

Post by Dana Sheets »

Change is hard, bigger changes are even harder. I'm proud to say that my church has issued a statement of conscience that addresses the failed war on drugs and proposes an entirely new framework for viewing drug abstinence, use, abuse, and addiction as a matter of public health instead of a matter of criminal activity.

I'm going to post the entire statement (which is fairly long) so that it can be debated as a whole or in pieces. I respect those who object to the statement. I belive that this statement is visionary, thoughtful, and ultimately will prove to be the most effective course of action.

Dana
Unitarian Universalists For Drug Policy Reform
http://www.uudpr.org/

Alternatives to the War on Drugs

Statement of Conscience

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

Background: This final draft Statement of Conscience of the Unitarian Universalist Association builds upon four social witness statements on drug policy adopted by the Unitarian Universalist Association between 1965 and 1991. In June 2000, the General Assembly of the UUA selected "Alternatives to the 'War on Drugs'" as the Study/Action Issue (SAI) suggested to congregations for two years of study, action, and reflection.

The Commission on Social Witness (CSW) received initial reports from congregations and districts in March 2001. In June 2001, the CSW held a workshop on this issue at General Assembly. An initial draft Statement of Conscience was distributed to all congregations and districts for their reflection and feedback. At its March 2002 meeting, the CSW prepared a revised draft. It was placed on the final agenda of the June 2002 General Assembly. A mini-assembly was held on Friday, June 21, where proposed amendments were received. Friday evening, June 21, the CSW produced this final draft Statement of Conscience, based on the mini-assembly and the proposed amendments. The delegates present at the Saturday, June 22 plenary adopted this Statement of Conscience with the required two-thirds majority.

OUR CALL TO END THE "WAR ON DRUGS" AS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE

For more than thirty years, American public policy has advanced an escalating "war on drugs" that seeks to eradicate illegal drugs from our society. It is increasingly clear that this effort has failed. Our current drug policy has consumed tens of billions of dollars and wrecked countless lives. The costs of this policy include the increasing breakdown of families and neighborhoods, endangerment of children, widespread violation of civil liberties, escalating rates of incarceration, political corruption, and the imposition of United States policy abroad. For United States taxpayers, the price tag on the drug offensive has soared from $66 million in 1968 to almost $20 billion in 2000, an increase of over 30,000 percent. In practice the drug war disproportionately targets people of color and people who are poverty-stricken. Coercive measures have not reduced drug use, but they have clogged our criminal justice system with non-violent offenders. It is time to explore alternative approaches and to end this costly war.

The war on drugs has blurred the distinction between drug use and drug abuse. Drug use is erroneously perceived as behavior that is always out of control and harmful to others. Illegal drug use is thus portrayed as threatening to society. As a result, drug policy has been closed to study, discussion, and consideration of alternatives by legislative bodies. Yet many people who use both legal and illegal drugs live productive, functional lives and do no harm to society.

As Unitarian Universalists committed to a free and responsible search for truth, we must protest the misguided policies that shape current practice. We cannot in good conscience remain quiet when it is becoming clear that we have been misled for decades about illegal drugs. United States government drug policy makers mislead the world about the purported success of the war on drugs. They tell the public that success is dependent upon even more laws restricting constitutional protections and the allocation of billions of dollars for drug law enforcement. They mislead the public about the extent of corruption and environmental degradation that the American war on drugs has left in its wake in other countries.

As Unitarian Universalists committed to affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every person and to justice, equity, and compassion in human relations, we call for thoughtful consideration and implementation of alternatives that regard the reduction of harm as the appropriate standard by which to assess drug policies. We seek a compassionate reduction of harm associated with drugs, both legal and illegal, with special attention to the harm unleashed by policies established in the war on drugs.

As Unitarian Universalists committed to respecting the interdependent web of existence of which we are a part, we find irresponsible and morally wrong the practices of scorching the earth and poisoning the soil and ground water in other countries to stop the production of drugs that are illegal in the United States.

As a community of faith, Unitarian Universalists have both a moral imperative and a personal responsibility to ask the difficult questions that so many within our society are unable, unwilling, or too afraid to ask. In asking these questions and in weighing our findings, we are compelled to consider a different approach to national drug policy.

A DIFFERENT APPROACH

To conceive and develop a more just and compassionate drug policy, it is necessary to transform how we view drugs and particularly drug addiction. Drug use, drug abuse, and drug addiction are distinct from one another. Using a drug does not necessarily mean abusing the drug, much less becoming addicted to it. Drug abuse issues are essentially matters for medical attention. We do not believe that drug use should be considered criminal behavior. Advocates for harsh drug policies with severe penalties for drug use often cite violent crime as a direct result of drug use. Drugs alone do not cause crime. Legal prohibition of drugs leads to inflated street value, which in turn incites violent turf wars among distributors. The whole pattern is reminiscent of the proliferation of organized crime at the time of alcohol prohibition in the early twentieth century. That policy also failed.

We believe that the vision of a drug-free America is unrealistic. Many programs for school children have misled participants and the public by teaching that all illicit drugs are equally harmful in spite of current scientific research to the contrary. "Just Say No" is not a viable policy. The consequences of the current drug war are cruel and counterproductive. At issue here are the health and well-being of our families and our communities, our society, and our global community. Alternatives exist.

ALTERNATIVE GOALS

Based on this perspective, we believe appropriate and achievable goals for reformed national drug policies include:

preventing consumption of drugs, including alcohol and nicotine, that are harmful to the health of children and adolescents;

reducing the likelihood that drug users will become drug abusers;

minimizing the harmful effects of drug use, such as disease contracted from the use of contaminated needles and overdoses resulting from the unwitting use of impure drugs;

increasing the availability and affordability of quality drug treatment and eliminating the stigma associated with accessing it;

significantly reducing violent and predatory drug-related crime;

minimizing the harmful consequences of current drug policy, such as racial profiling, property confiscation without conviction, and unnecessary incarceration;

and reducing the harm to our earth now caused by the practice of destroying crops intended for the production of drugs.



ALTERNATIVE POLICIES

Instead of the current war on drugs, we offer the following policies for study, debate, and implementation:


Shift budget priorities from spending for pursuit, prosecution, and imprisonment of drug law offenders to spending for education, treatment, and research.


Develop and implement age-appropriate drug education programs that are grounded in research and fact and that promote dialogue without fear of censure or reprisal.


Undertake research to assess the effects of currently illegal drugs. Ensure that findings and conclusions are publicly accessible, serving as a basis for responsible decision making by individuals and in arenas of public policy and practice.


Research the sociological factors that contribute to habitual, addictive, and destructive drug use, such as poverty, poor mental health, sexual or other physical abuse, and lack of education or medical treatment.


Research and expand a range of management and on-demand treatment programs for drug abuse and addiction. Examples include nutritional counseling, job training, psychiatric evaluation and treatment, psychological counseling, parent training and assistance, support groups, clean needle distribution and exchange, substitution of safer drugs (e.g. methadone or marijuana), medically administered drug maintenance, disease screening, and acupuncture and other alternative and complementary treatments. Publish the results of studies of these programs.


Require health insurance providers to cover in-patient and out-patient treatment for substance abuse on the same basis as treatment of other chronic health conditions.


Make all drugs legally available with a prescription by a licensed physician, subject to professional oversight. End the practice of punishing an individual for obtaining, possessing, or using an otherwise illegal substance to treat a medical condition. End the threat to impose sanctions on physicians who treat patients with opiates for alleviation of pain.


Prohibit civil liberties violations and other intrusive law enforcement practices. Violations of the right to privacy, such as urine testing, should be imposed only upon employees in safety-sensitive occupations.


Establish a legal, regulated, and taxed market for marijuana. Treat marijuana as we treat alcohol.


Modify civil forfeiture laws to require conviction before seizure of assets. Prohibit the eviction of family, friends, and co-habitants or the loss of government entitlements based on drug law violation.


Abolish mandatory minimum prison sentences for the use and distribution of currently illicit drugs. Legislation should specify only maximum prison sentences.


Remove criminal penalties for possession and use of currently illegal drugs, with drug abusers subject to arrest and imprisonment only if they commit actual crimes (e.g., assault, burglary, impaired driving, vandalism). End sentencing inequities driven by racial profiling.


Establish and make more accessible prison-based drug treatment, education, job training, and transition programs designed for inmates.


End the financing of anti-drug campaigns in Central and South America, which promote the widespread spraying of herbicides, contribute to the destruction of rainforests, and are responsible for uprooting peoples from their homelands.


OUR CALL TO ACT AS A PEOPLE OF FAITH

We must begin with ourselves. Our congregations can offer safe space for open and honest discussion among congregants about the complex issues of drug use, abuse, and addiction. Through acceptance of one another and the encouragement of spiritual growth, we should be able to acknowledge and address our own drug use without fear of censure or reprisal.

We can recognize that drugs include not only currently illegal substances but also alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, over-the-counter pain relievers, and prescription drugs. We can learn to distinguish among use, abuse, and addiction. We can support one another in recognizing drug-related problems and seeking help. We can seek to understand those among us who use drugs for relief or escape. With compassion, we can cultivate reflection and analysis of drug policy. In the safe space of our own congregations, we can begin to prevent destructive relationships with drugs. We can lend necessary support to individuals and families when their loved ones need treatment for addiction problems. We can encourage our congregations to partner with and follow the lead of groups representing individuals whose lives are most severely undermined by current drug policy--people of color and people of low income. We can learn from health care professionals what the unique patterns of substance abuse are in our local areas. We can go beyond our walls and bring our perspective to the interfaith community, other nonprofit organizations, and elected officials.

Our Unitarian Universalist history calls us to pursue a more just world. Our faith compels us to hold our leaders accountable for their policies. In calling for alternatives to the war on drugs, we are mindful of its victims. Drug use should be addressed solely as a public health problem, not as a criminal justice issue. Dependence upon any illegal drugs or inappropriate use of legal drugs may point to deep, unmet human needs. We have a moral obligation to advocate compassionate, harm-reducing policy. We believe that our nations have the imagination and capability to address effectively the complex issues of the demand for drugs, both legal and illegal.

We reaffirm the spirit of our social witness positions taken on drugs in resolutions adopted from 1965 to 1991. Recognizing the right of conscience for all who differ, we denounce the war on drugs and recommend alternative goals and policies. Let neither fear nor any other barrier prevent us from advocating a more just, compassionate world.


Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108
Kevin Mackie
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am

Post by Kevin Mackie »

Thanks for posting that, Dana.

I'd be for this proposal 100% Diverting the money from the "war" and costs for incarceration into education and treatment would dry up most of the market for illicit drugs and make it a unworthy venture for smugglers and growers. Anyone remember the prohibition fiasco??

Pot is already California's biggest money crop; why not tax it and regulate it as alcohol is? Why wouldn't politicians love this? There's not a politician that hasn't seen a tax they didn't love. I love consumption taxes myself.

Control and regulation has the added benefit of making the drugs safer.

And the timing is great. The miltary and CIA will still have a war on terror to fight.

Kevin
benzocaine
Posts: 2107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Location: St. Thomas

Post by benzocaine »

Imagine the revenue the government could generate for treating drug addicts by TAXING marijuanna. I think it's a great idea.
User avatar
Dana Sheets
Posts: 2715
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Post by Dana Sheets »

Point of discussion:
People who abuse (currently illegal) drugs should be dealt with in exactly the same way that we now deal with the abusers of alcohol. That is, we offer to help, but we do not arrest or punish unless the person is directly putting someone else in danger (e.g., disturbing the peace or drunk driving).
lookingglass
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 1:37 am
Location: oklahoma

Post by lookingglass »

this is not the focus of the idea. I believe all that is said is that ppl like pot and want to smoke it. I dont smoke pot but others do. They all have the talk and crap about how good it is and all that. but it may help in the taxes. I say tax the hell out of it. make it a new illegal venture to continue to sale unregulated pot and we can fight that. The point you fools are missing is pot is in itself a poor mans business. It is not rationalized by many users and some families suppliment income by selling. When I was a child I did. so how will you fight or employ all the little thugs out there selling the pot you want to take for your selves.
Email me at Lookingglassk@yahoo.com for questions or comments.
User avatar
Andrew Evans
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 6:24 am
Location: Topeka, KS
Contact:

Post by Andrew Evans »

Ms. Sheets,

As a martial artist, I tell my students to avoid illegal drugs. Heck, I also tell them to avoid legal drugs. I avoid drugs whenever possible and have never consumed any illegal drugs.

Despite my personal choices and the advice I give, I think the individual should be free to make his or her own choice. I am also for getting government out of our personal lives. I applaud the UUA for taking such a progessive stand and I also applaud you for bringing up this issue in a forum populated by some of the most health-conscious people on the web.

Regards,
Andrew Evans
Hokkien Martial Arts
www.TopekaKarate.com
Kevin Mackie
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am

Post by Kevin Mackie »

The point you fools are missing is pot is in itself a poor mans business
You cannot be speaking about the people contributing to this discussion?
When I was a child I did. so how will you fight or employ all the little thugs out there selling the pot you want to take for your selves.
It is not society's problem to put criminals to work when their illegal enterprise dries up. That may be a point of discussion about the failed war on poverty, but maybe another time, another thread.
make it a new illegal venture to continue to sale unregulated pot and we can fight that.
I'm sorry. Isn't it currently illegal? Or don't you have grasp of the laws as they stand today?? You admittedly have (or had) no respect for them.

Kevin
User avatar
Deep Sea
Posts: 1682
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 6:01 am
Contact:

Post by Deep Sea »

I for one support the legallization of drugs, and have for many years. Before prohibition, the drugs used to get high were not illegal and were readily obtainable.

Let the states open and run drug shops like some states do with liquor shops; state-run to collect tases.

The arithmetic is simple, tax coffers would be full, crime would drop, etc. Life would again be beautiful, and not from smoking dope either. Well, maybe it would for some people.

From a Christian and family standpoint I am against drugs, but not against their legalization for practical and obvious reasons.
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
lookingglass
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 1:37 am
Location: oklahoma

Post by lookingglass »

That is your idea...

The arithmetic is simple, tax coffers would be full, crime would drop, etc. Life would again be beautiful, and not from smoking dope either. Well, maybe it would for some people.

Have you ever given a child what he wanted? Soon you have a child that is spoiled. The first thought that we should examime is why it is illegal and why it has not been legalized to date. There are very good reasons. Just because the majority is doing it doesnt make it valid. This substance has been the key to lives lost and gang and drug wars. I know almost anything is subject to this but these are currently illegal. Yes, alcohol and tabacco are deadly but they arent illegal.

Yes!
We have two deadly legal drugs that we can choose from already and some of you here said you dont even use them. So why support legalizing pot? What difference will that make and I would argue that many others more educated on the idea have spoken before you.
I think this is a scap goat and attempt to shift power from the evil empire to the people. Look at the majority of those that seek the legalization of pot. They are not educated and respectful people. Some even think that is the thing of the low class and down and out people. I see mostly children that use pot out there and they simply grow up. Wow lets give them what they want and for what reason, to smoke a plant...
This plant doesnt desearve this much attention...
Sorry for not editing the mistakes.
The war on drugs is a failure...
I worked this a man that worked in a gov. drug task force and he admitted as many government agencys and law enforcement that the war on drugs is a failure.
We can beat them now and to give up and join them I find redundent!

Ken Lookingglass, Jr. citizen of the United States of America. My country...
Email me at Lookingglassk@yahoo.com for questions or comments.
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

lookingglass wrote:Have you ever given a child what he wanted? Soon you have a child that is spoiled. The first thought that we should examime is why it is illegal and why it has not been legalized to date. There are very good reasons.
I don't read anywhere in this thread where anyone has advocated giving drugs to children. The discussion is about legalizing drugs based specifically on the fact that the so-called "War on (some) Drugs" has been a dismal failure in numerous respects.

You state that first we should examine why these drugs are illegal and why they haven't been legalized. Then you state that there are "very good reasons" (for these drugs being illegal and not legalized).

Very well... Since you take that position. Please state those reasons.

Also note that some drugs which are available only by prescription at a high cost in the US are available over the counter in Canada at a cost of $6 (canadian) for a bottle of 100. Why should these drugs which others can get readily in other countries be so highly regulated in the US? Don't answer. They shouldn't be regulated so highly in the US. It's just another way for certain segments of the population to have control over other segments of the population.

In the meantime, please realize that the illegal drugs (as previously pointed out by Deep Sea) were perfectly legal until 1934. To give further history surrounding the situation which resulted in these drugs being made illegal in 1934, it is historical fact that the 21st Amendment to the US Consitution passed in December 1933. That Constitutional Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution which had been passed in January of 1919. The 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation and distribution of intoxicating liquors (Prohibition). The 21st Amendment repealed those prohibitions. In those nearly 14 years, the (in)famous "Untouchables" came into being. These "revenuers" used any and every means necessary to enforce the 18th Amendment and in that period of time the ranks of those Federal enforcers swelled. In early 1934, with the repeal of the very law that dictated their existence, these Federal enforcers faced their own extinction. Like every bureaucracy bent on self-preservation, they formulated a plan to keep themselves employed. Thus at the stroke of a pen, FDR signed the legislation that made quite a number of items illegal, simultaneously insuring the need for the continued employment of the Federal enforcers.
We have two deadly legal drugs that we can choose from already and some of you here said you dont even use them. So why support legalizing pot?
Because it isn't about drugs. Just like it isn't about helmet laws. It isn't about seatbelt laws. It isn't about guns. It isn't about smoking. It isn't about drinking. It isn't about safety. It isn't about security. It is about FREEDOM.
What difference will that make and I would argue that many others more educated on the idea have spoken before you.
Perhaps, but I would argue that their education on the subject was from a slanted, predetermined approach that failed to address the underlying important point. It isn't about legalizing drugs, it's about Freedom.
I think this is a scap goat and attempt to shift power from the evil empire to the people. Look at the majority of those that seek the legalization of pot. They are not educated and respectful people. Some even think that is the thing of the low class and down and out people. I see mostly children that use pot out there and they simply grow up. Wow lets give them what they want and for what reason, to smoke a plant...
This plant doesnt desearve this much attention...
Sorry for not editing the mistakes.
The war on drugs is a failure...
I worked this a man that worked in a gov. drug task force and he admitted as many government agencys and law enforcement that the war on drugs is a failure.
Good! Then you shouldn't have a problem with legalizing the plant and removing the Government's attention on it! Also, to say that the majority are not educated and/or respectful people is naive. Attend a NORML or Mass-Cann rally and you will see that is not the case. I, personally, won't be affected by the legalization of these drugs, just as I won't be affected by a repeal of the current helmet law or seatbelt law. I will wear a helmet. I will wear a seatbelt. I won't use those drugs. But I do support Freedom and personal responsibility.

Why would anyone support the continuation of policies that have been proven to be dismal failures for decades?

Also, I have asked the question before and still (regardless of others claims to have given me a good response) have never recieved a satisfactory answer to these simple questions:

In 1918-1919, the Congress, Judiciary, Executives and Citizens of the United States of America knew that the only way to make alcoholic beverages illegal was through a Constitutional Amendment. These same citizens also knew in 1933, that to reverse that decision, they must repeal that Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution is the law of the land. Prior to 1934, other "statutes and regulations" simply did not carry the weight of law. Prior to 1934, statutes and regulations were used for other purposes, such as mail regulations, military rules, voting, districts, territories, and to support the freedoms of the citizenry. So... What happened in 1934 that changed things? Why was it true in 1919 that to make liquor illegal it took a Constitutional Amendment, but in 1934 that wasn't necessary to make a whole host of other "drugs" illegal? If, as some claim, the 18th Amendment wasn't necessary to make liquor illegal, then why was it done. And if, as some claim, the "laws" making other "drugs" illegal in 1934 didn't require a Constitutional Amendment, then why weren't the citizenry given the same opportunity to vote these "laws" into being in the form of a Constitutional Amendment?

The truth is in the history. The Citizens of the United States of America were sold out long ago. Those who want to repeal certain laws are not looking for anarchy, nor are they looking to destroy the United States. They're looking to regain the Freedoms which have been stolen from all of us... one repeal at a time. Unfortunately, that is a tough battle and too many have bought into the brainwashing which Big Brother has accomplished over the last few generations.

Never forget the Freedom that you've already lost.
lookingglass
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 1:37 am
Location: oklahoma

Post by lookingglass »

This freedom that is being discussed isnt about my right to live and enjoy life to the fullest. This isnt a freedom that shallows democracy. This is a vain attempt to prove that we the people can change something; in this situation the law about pot. I am for the ablity to appeal laws and that is freedom to speak against the law now. My point is this if you dont use the stuff why are you fighting for it and it is not only for the sake of fight for the rights of americans and the country.
I say you have put some time and effort in this debate and think that you can be more useful in other areas of this country; fighting for something more worth while then freedom to smoke a plant to get high.
Email me at Lookingglassk@yahoo.com for questions or comments.
User avatar
nick
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Canada (for now)

Post by nick »

We’ve spoken about this subject of legalization of marijuana on the forum in the past. It’s become a pet peeve of mine. So, here goes the rant:

Some mentioned they won’t be affected by it, one way or the other. I would disagree. If you look at the long term, and the costs of the illegal activity associated with the money made from the selling of marijuana, I think you will find it is the grease of the “Big Red Machine” (that’s the Hells Angels to most*), as well as other criminal organizations.

I say cut the support payments to these organizations. Lawyer fees, criminal soldier money, and the cost of doing criminal business is not cheap. Yet by not decriminalizing marijuana, they are provided with ample funds to keep going.

In my area, the angels control all of the drug trade, prostitution, extortion and run a huge money laundering operation. Using services and not paying their share for example, cost me more in my property and income taxes (both of which are way too high as it is).

The police do what they can, but in crime, money is power.

Lookingglass, you mention low income entrepreneurs. Do these people actually make any profit, or just pay for their smoke? It has been my observation these small business people are used and abused. They don’t really make any money and if they are successful in selling their quota, it is increased by the supplier and they are forced to sell more until caught and arrested. (Remember, if you owe money when arrested, the boys will get their money back one way or the other. Even if that means going up the line to mom and dad, ex-wife, uncles, whoever... That’s where extortion kicks in.)

I say decriminalize and tax it. End of Rant. :x

*although to me it means the University of Oklahoma from back in their hey day during the Barry Switzer era :)
Arnisador84
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 6:28 am
Location: Pullman, WA

Post by Arnisador84 »

The way I see it, legalization of pot is a good idea. I know a lot of people who smoke (I'm not one of them) and they never seem to have too much of a problem getting their hands on it. But they sometimes have a hassle of getting it, such as waiting for a call, or someone doesn't have any more until next week, et cetera.

If there is a store with normal store hours that sells marijuanna right next to tobacco and alcohol at competitive prices, no one is going to deal with the little hassles of calling people, waiting around, and then relying on a seller who isn't reliable to get a product that may or may not be quite what they want. Besides, if they can get an industry regulated product with specific styles, flavors, and other things that cause people to stick with a certain brand of cigarettes, they aren't going to want someone's home grown stuff.

The illegal market for marijuanna would be choked out if it were legalized and regulated. Groups such as the Hell's Angels or whoever else that is selling pot would have to find their money somewhere else. Here's a metaphor for you- some of you like you have a little vegetable garden because you like fresh cucumbers, tomatoes, and whatever else, but what percentage of people who eat cucumbers and tomatoes buy them at the store instead?

Respectfully,
Andrew Heuett
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

History and genesis of drug laws in the US? A long topic, for another time.

The reason medications are so expensive in the US vs. Canada is b/c Canada has price controls. The US does not. As for drug manufacturing regulations, the Canadian equivalent of the US FDA (the Health Protection Bureau) has almost equivalent safety standards, so that is a non sequetor. One can also talk about how increased regulations leads to higher costs, higher prices, the consumer getting hurt yada yada yada. But no one can point to any regulation - not a single one - that is not necessary for the protection of the public health or welfare. In fact, every single law or regulation relating to drug safety was usually preceeded by a major public health catastrophe, usually b/c the manufacturer didn't think it important to take public health or safety into consideration.

Federal drug laws and their legality? Possibly they could be on shaky ground, and the Supreme Court has even intimated as such. Interstate Commerce and all that. But each state also has their own drug laws. And as long as there is a legitimate state interest and a law is reasonable, the states can do whatever they wish in matters that concern only them. And Panther is 100% completely correct when he states it's about freedom, because, yes, the state can take away certain freedoms when they pass laws necessary for the public's health and safety. And when the states end up in court, as they invariably do 'cause someone sues them, the onus is on to show the law's legitimacy and reasonableness. Many a law have been struck down because they aren't reasonable, or serve a legitimate state interest. But many a law have been upheld, because they are reasonable and serve a legitimate state interest.

As for illicit drugs, it is my opinion that illicit drugs pose a threat to public health and safety, both to individuals and the public at large and ought be banned. Whether punitive means are necessary to accomplish that, or are the best method for that.....I dunno.

Gene
User avatar
Dana Sheets
Posts: 2715
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Not just pot...

Post by Dana Sheets »

The idea is not to decriminalize pot. The idea is to decriminalize the spectrum of controlled substances. The goal isn't just freedom - a main part of the goal is also harm reduction.

This affects abstainers, users, abusers, and addicts. Many simple users get crimial records for possesion that wreck their chances for economic advancement. This damns large swatches of society to cycles of poverty, crime and low education. By putting funds into drug education and treatment instead of incarceration the harm to their lives, and thus ours, would be reduced.

Everyone would benefit if drugs were not as much of a money making edeavor. As the statement says - a drug free america is not a possibility. So a better goal than unrealistic elimination is to make the impact of drugs as small as possible on everyone. There will still be abstainers, users, abusers, and addicts. But instead of everyone bearing an incredible cost burden for incarceration and legal actions, regulation and taxation will allow for education and treatment. Take away the financial incentive and you take away much of the violence. Take away the stigma of drug use and you end deadly behaviors such this scenario:

A bunch of well-to-do college students party with coke bought on the street. Turns out the coke is cut with speed. One of the students has a pre-existing heart condition and goes into cardiac arrest. The other students, fearing arrest, expulsion, prison, etc - leave their friend to die instead of calling an ambulance.

If the students received a regulated substance and were required to be informed of risks and side effects in order to acquire it from a licensed pharmacist - then when their friend went into cardiac arrest then they would have called 911 instead of running away.

Dana
Last edited by Dana Sheets on Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Realist Training”