I've heard a lot of discussion over the past few years about the waste of resources dedicated to fighting the illegal drug trade. There are quite a few people taking the position that it's none of the government's business, that illegal drug users are not harmful to others and that what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their business and nobody else's.
These may be valid points but, at the same time, rapists, murderers and child molesters are often given softer sentences because they were under the influence of a drug, or suffering from a drug addiction. There are also those advocating drug addiction as a handicap (self-inflicted, albeit), seeking the same protections as people suffering with serious disabilities through no fault of their own.
Well, you can't have it both ways, folks. If you're stupid enough to take drugs and harm your body at the risk of harming others, then you need to take the responsibility for your actions.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 49
If America really wanted to stop the sale of drugs it would do it through prosecuting and punishing the street sellers instead of using them as stooges. Plea bargains would not be used to gain information which is usually useless anyway.
The war on drugs is a phony as the Iraq/Afghanistan war, does nothing to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and is nothing but more corporate war profiteering.
Ask yourself why Methadone is ok to use for drug addicted people. The answer is that is is made by a legal company that makes profits from it and that is the only difference between legal and illegal drugs.
The War on Drugs, like the War on Poverty etc has been a huge waste of treasure and blood. Said drugs are cheaper and more easily obtained and the wealth generated is a source of bloody contention by terrorists, drug gangs, and several governments. It supports some US industries like much of law enforcement, some of the legal, the prison industry etc. It's also a source of bi-partisan agreement in DC/state houses that only increased repression can "save us" Never mind the erosion of civil rights and increase of government power across the board.
So legalize them and tax the hound out of 'em.
I think it should be the same with drugs. Perhaps if they did cause themselves permanent harm we should help with medical issues, but not unless they can prove that they're completely drug free.
I saw a discussion about how unfair it was that crack users are treated more harshly than cocaine users, and how we should let up on the crack users. Nope. If we're not being tough enough on cocaine users, we should GET tough. If that means we're putting fancy lawyers in prison, so be it.
Point two: Committing a crime under the influence of any drug (such as alcohol) should make the penalty more severe. The reason being that the person under the influence is most unlikely to stop using the drug.
Point three: If person A gives / sells person B a drug which harms person B when used as directed then person A should be considered to be guilty of assault (first degree murder if death occurs).
Point four: If person A gives or sells person B a drug which results in behavior on the part of Person B which harms person B or anyone else, person A should also be held responsible (in addition to person B).
My question to you, Dan, is are the positions I state above conservative, liberal, or something else?
Regarding Dan's statement "There are also those advocating drug addiction as a handicap (self-inflicted, albeit)" I can't agree that it is always self-inflicted. Many addictions begin as a legitimate prescription which someone becomes addicted to through no fault of their own. Addiction is an illness and should be treated as such. Crimes committed under the influence should be prosecuted on their own merits and no one should be given any leniency due to their condition, however, they should have treatment and not just punishment. If you just punish them it does not get at the root of the problem... but I don't think treatment alone is sufficient either. They should go through treatment and THEN be appropriately punished for the given crime.
Finally, drugs and herbs all have valid uses and it's time that this was recognized instead of denied. Those who become addicted should not be ostracized - they need help, not hate.
Sunday, March 22nd, 2009 | Author: Synchronium
The following passage is taken from Sam Harris’s book, The End Of Faith, and talks about religion’s role in keeping drugs illegal:
[see whole article at above link]
which they could support crime-free easily without the amazing price mark-up due to blackmarket capitalism.
I can agree with most of everything you have written though.
How do you punish person A for legally selling drugs to person B, who then abuses them and, as a result, does harm to him/herself and/or others?
Do you think my position is conservative? I really don't think it's a liberal/conservative issue.
If I'm not mistaken, most talk that I hear about legalizing drugs comes from conservatives.
I'm not so sure on this one. Could the poor afford legalized drugs? Who would administer them and to whom; therefore, there would still be a need for legalized drugs.
Point four: If person A gives or sells person B a drug which results in behavior on the part of Person B which harms person B or anyone else, person A should also be held responsible (in addition to person B)."
I am assuming you are including the drugs of "Big Pharma," maybe those especially as they are more likely given to people under the authority of "do this and be cured." Most users of illegal drugs at least go into it knowing they are putting themselves at risk.
I thought it had been decriminalised. I am on my way over to the Medical Marijuana shop now as a matter of fact. Prescribed by a Dr.!
Larry M., May 6, 2009, 3:34pm EDT "
utilitarianism
Crack down on the dealers and put them in jail for a much longer sentence.... They is alot of people who fry their brains and then get on disability... but as for the drinking... yes, they can still get a check... they just come up with something else that ails them... once they claim they cant work because of the the addictions, they now have no income and two complaints... I know people who have drank themselves into a disability check especially if they dont have any income.... but I also, know someone who ate himself into being about 4oo lbs. and gets a check too.... with several thousands back pay....
Thanks Dan, for inviting me to your article.... Its a good one...
That being said, we will still have addicts. We will still have minors doing drugs. It will be the same as alcohol. People will be driving under the influence. BUT, I think the big time crime and killing will be reduced. I do think it would help. I also feel like the government isn't doing as much as they could.
How do you punish person A for legally selling drugs to person B, who then abuses them and, as a result, does harm to him/herself and/or others?
I didn't say to "punish" person A, I said that person A should be held to be partially responsible for the bad consequences of person B's behavior as influenced by the drug.
I don't think that receiving money for some item eliminates all responsibility for what use is made of that item.
Now how that responsibility is to be expressed by others in the society is another matter. To see how I, personally, would like to see it handled you will need to read Invisible Hand.
Your speculation may be accurate...but it is not necessarily so. For one thing, there is a difference between decriminalization and legalization....legalization being the reference you have made.
You have also assumed the practice of marketing street drugs, which hasn't been proposed by any person or group I can think of.
You haven't considered, at least here, the reduction of violent crimes and property crimes (crimes by addicts to get money to PAY the highly inflated prices for street drugs...the reduction in gang activity, the reduction in spending by ALL segments of law enforcement, the reduction in the cost of maintaining our court systems, a reduction in the costs of maintaining our prison systems, a reduction in the spread of communicable diseases...and you haven't considered the worth of the improvement of the quality of life we can provide for those who are addicted to any substance which is harmful.
If we expect our government to protect us from everything which is harmful, why do we exclude tobacco as being outlawed? Tobacco is most dangerous drug in use if we tally the health risks associated with that use. Next in line as a dangerous addition is that of food. Obesity is the number two killer in America.
But...if the assertion that decriminalization will lead to increased drug use is valid, then an example of such truth would be a available due to the practice of decriminalization by other countries. This is not the case.
Portugal decriminalized the use of most street drugs about 5 years ago.
From this article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
"In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.
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."
Mmm, I don't think this is correct. I would expect that if a perp was jacked up on drugs, he would get less sympathy because of the evidence of being guilty of more crimes. Any judge worth his/her salt wouldn't lighten up on a drug-crazed offender, as opposed to a perfectly sober offender.
I'm not sure I'd want to legalize heroin and meth and crack and other really bad chemicals, but I see marijuana in a different light, on the same street where alcohol and tobacco live. It should definitely be legalized. The positive effects would be 1. taking 'personal use' type pot smokers and growers out of the supermax prisons 2. defusing an entire black market and violent marijuana smugglers, like repeal of prohibition did 3. create a whole new industry which would create jobs and markets 4. create a new revenue stream for our illustrious lawmakers to squander.
We've already been talking about pot for some time. The view here is it's not a threat to society, and neither are pot smokers, unless they drive under the influence.
Unfortunately, most of our legislators don't always seem to take the consequences of their actions into consideration, do they?
They drink - let them smoke.
Put at least the pot dealers out of business and save money on trials and jail space. Then, TAX THE HECK OUT OF IT.
sorry for yelling.
Have a nice weekend Dan.
Drug education has not stopped drug use. Laws have not stopped drug use. Wishful thinking is not going to stop drug use. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy land.
In the meantime, our angels in blue (yes, I am referring to police officers) are dying unnecessarily in this fight. That is an injustice of epic proportions. How dare our government waste the lives of those who dedicate themselves to protecting the public on a "mission" that everyone knows is futile? Shame on them!
In addition to that, this "war" has created circumstances which have shaped a crime-based counterculture which is basically a meat grinder which destroys the society's poor and desperate, not through illegal drug use, but through the gang activity which surrounds the business of illegal drug commerce. Legalizing drugs would take most drug related sales aspect away from the criminal element as legal, regulated businesses formed around this activity. No, legalizing drugs won't magically cure society of gang activity. Yes, it would take away one part of the gang equation, and possibly reduce the reasons today's young kids might have for joining a gang. (Money is a big, big lure.)
Legalization would also take away some of the risk to which the user is subjected... he or she could expect a consistent product from a legal, regulated provider. If one's business is above board, one's business is potentially liable for damages if one's product is not what one claims it is. People don't have to die in huge numbers from "bad" batches if there is someone who can be held accountable for a drug's unexpected effects.
Finally, if drugs are legalized, produced stateside, and sold in a legal, safe forum, then terrorists can't use drug sales for profit to fund their war against western civilization as they are doing now.
I do believe that if illegal drugs are legalized, there would have to be some specific and strict regulation involved, just as there is in the cases of alcohol and tobacco. Obviously, there has to be an age limit. Though this doesn't keep all kids from using currently legal but controlled substances before they are of age, it does act as a deterrent to many.
The same laws which apply to alcohol and driving should apply to driving while under the influence of a legalized mind-altering drug, as well.
Using drugs should not excuse anyone from obedience of any laws, either. Just as one cannot use being drunk as an excuse for violation of the law, being high should not get anyone out of prosecution. Just as one can be legally required to seek treatment for addiction to alcohol when one's addiction related behavior puts one in the legal doghouse, the same should be true with addiction to any other drug.
I think that the handling of alcohol would be a good model for the handling of legalization of drugs, with one exception.
The illegal sale of drugs by an unlicensed provider, or to an illegal recipient (underage, etc.) should be treated as a more serious crime than the illegal sale of alcohol because of the nature of harder drugs. I think that with most hard drugs, this should be regulated more in the manner in which the sale of prescription drugs is handled. Some drugs should be handled even more strictly than that, especially where there is the possibility for fatal overdose even without extreme use. Though I do believe drug users should take responsibility for their actions, I also believe that drug dealers should take responsibility for theirs, as well.
Take responsibility? In what way, Dan? Years in jail for possession of... whatever? Sorry, that's just dumb. We need to find a better way than spending gazillions of dollars on other people's drug of choice. My brother is an alcoholic. He has his "reasons," but he won't go to jail for it. I was a 50-year nicotine addict, but no one ever threatened me with jail, rehab, community service... But cocain, coke, heroin, etc., addicts? Off to th' hoosegow widdem! Stoopud stuff, sez I.
Hey Chuck ... read what I wrote, would ya? I'm talking about paying for the crimes they commit under the influence, rather than using their addiction as an excuse to rape, murder and rob.