From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 02:30:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa

Thus spake jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence): 

>In article <7ytnd5b.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
writes:

>>	Primary among drug related offenses (apart from simple possession of
>>small quantities of illegal substances) are those related to the sales of
>>drugs - which includes possession with intent (i.e., possession of a larger
>>quantity than the state deems reasonable for personal use, i.e., more than
>>one ounce of marijuana or one gram of cocaine in must jurisdictions). NONE
>>of these individuals would be incarcerated if drugs were legal.
>   
>	Bunk. Simple possession does not send anyone to prison. That's what
>probation is for. Anyone in prison for simple possession would represent an
>extremly small portion of the prison population. Burglary, homicide with
>automobiles, trafficing in stolen goods, possession of large quantites of
>drugs, and murder have roots in drugs. These people are not "Goodfellows"
>and they do not commit these crimes because they are hungry. 

	In the first place, people DO go to jail for simple possession, look
at Texas law for an extreme example. In the second place, I excluded simple
possession above. Re-read my statement.

	It's interesting to note that what constitutes possession with
intent (or a "large quantity"), btw. For example, in many jurisdictions,
possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana is a felony (possession with
intent to distribute). Since pot is commonly sold in ounces (28 grams) that
means that the casual user is _invariably_ a felon. 

	In ALL areas of the country, growing marijuana constitutes
cultivation with intent to distribute. Thus the individual who grows a
single plant in their closet (to avoid all contact with the drug culture) is
a major felon.

	Even in those cases where the person possess LARGE quantities of a
drug, they have not harmed anyone in the manner you imply. Unlike all the
other crimes you cite, possession is a victimless one - yet often the most
harshly punished. Here in MI, for instance, the following case occured (in
Battle Creek, if it matters):

	A homeless man (with a wife and 2 children) was offered $50 to go to
the bus station and pick up a suitcase and deliver it to an individual in a
car who would meet him. He was broke, and his family was hungry. He had
NEVER been charged with a crime in his life and was only homeless because of
layoffs and lack of work. He agreed to get the suitcase. Once he had it, he
was arrested and (predictably) the suitcase contained drugs - just over a
pound of cocaine to be exact. He admitted to the police that he _suspected_
the case might have drugs in it, but he said he needed the money. That
admission was rather expensive. The prosecutor charged him with possession
of over 450 grams of cocaine, and he was convicted. Under Michigan law there
is only ONE penalty for that offense - the judge had no legal alternative
but to sentence him to life without possibility of parole! THAT is insane!
For the rest of his life the state will be spending $40K per year to keep
him in Southern Michigan Prison, and probably supporting his family on
welfare as well (at another $10K or so a year). Since he was in his mid 20s
when he was convicted, that's at least 50 years at that rate, or $2.5
MILLION dollars to lock up a homeless man whose major crime was hunger!

	Tell me again that the laws are fair!

>If what you say is true, then if we reduce the cost of alcohol we would
>eliminate drunk drivers and the havoc they bring.

	And if what you say is true, if we made alcohol illegal we would
reduce crime.

	We tried that, remember?

	It had the same result that the CURRENT prohibition has - it
encouraged violence and crime.

	Tell me, what do YOU think would happen if the price of alcohol was
suddenly raised to 100 times it's current level and possession was made a
crime? Do you think alcoholics would simply sit home and stop drinking? Or
do you think that a sizable number of them would turn to criminal pursuits
to pay for their "fix" of vodka? If you believe they would simply stop
drinking, you don't live in the real world!

>>	Drugs, in themselves, do not lead to crimes. Drugs coupled with a
>>very great profit margin and a fear of arrest (in many states the penalty
>>for possession of a large quantity of drugs or for their sales is the same
>>as the one for killing a cop - which results in a real incentive not to
>>"surrender peacefully") DO lead to crimes. Take a look at the record of
>>prohibition in this country if you want an absolute demonstration of that
>>link.
>>
>That's right, and guns don't kill people.
>
	Are you saying that you support a total ban on all forms of guns?
It's the ONLY logical parallel to what you just stated.

>>	The argument that the drug laws exist to protect families is absurd.
>>How protected are the families of individuals who are arrested, drug through
>>the criminal justice system, jailed or fined, and end up fired from their
>>jobs and rejected by their community for choosing to smoke a joint instead
>>of having a drink in the pricacy of their home? How much good does it do a
>>family when one of its members is sent to prison for possession of a drug,
>>while the alcoholic next door is free to buy a case of whiskey whenever
>>desired? 
> 
> I have a hard time buying this argument that we are harassing users of
>a single joint.
>
	Really?

	You must live in a liberal area.

	Where I live ONE JOINT would be sufficient to cost a parent custody
of a child, to cost a student ALL financial aid for college, or to cost
anyone their home or automobile. Houses HAVE been seized for possession of
one joint, as have boats, cars, etc. In some areas (mine included) ANY
quantity (from one seed up) is a felony - and our prosecutor HAS prosecuted
under those statutes. Daily throughout the US property is seized without
trial because the owner had a small amount (under an ounce) of pot. 

	Wake up - the days of just prosecuting the large dealer are in the
past, this is the zero-tolerance era, remember?

>>	Either the role of the state is to protect us from ourselves, or it
>>is not. If it is, then alcohol and tobacco should be added to the list of
>>schedule one drugs and prosecuted as major felonies. If not, than it's time
>>to legalize ALL drugs and spend our money on education and treatment instead
>>of prisons and enforcement.
>> 
>A tremendous amount of time and money goes to the education and treatment
>inside jails and prisons, but if a person does not wish recovery, how do
>you reach them? If they could be reached before they kill, steal, or
>rob then society will be much better. Alcohol has a very long history and
>both alcohol and tobacco are tied to jobs in farming, etc,( you know the
>politics just as well as I do here) so trying to change this is next
>to impossible. 
>
	So in order to protect those jobs we permit widespread use of the
two most harmful drugs available, right?

	Don't you have just a bit of a problem supporting an argument that
safer drugs should be illegal while more harmful ones should be legal on
that type of economic grounds?

	Very little goes into treatment in prisons, btw - I know because I'm
one of the people who PROVIDE that treatment. Here in MI, for example, an
inmate may have to wait for months to get into a program. Of course it could
be worse, on the outside the wait for admission to a treatment program
(unless you have the money to pay for it of course) is an average of 9
months! Not because there are so many addicts - but because in the choice
between funding treatment programs and enforcement programs, our society
invariably chooses enforcement.

	And THAT is wrong!


-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to 
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the 
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4306 alt.politics.bush:4308