mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes, (missing the entire point of my post):  > kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu wrote: > > |Given that: > > |1. The trade in illegal drugs is responsible for > |much of the crime which afflicts our nation. > > There is much evidence that it is the fact that the drugs are illegal, not > the drugs themselves that have caused the violence. Witness prohibition > and the violence that surrounded the trade in alcohol.  No joke.  > |2. People who want drugs (particularly people who > |are predisposed to addiction) will find a way to get > |them, whether or not they are legally available. > > This is suppossed to be an argument for keeping drugs illegal?  No,_you_jumped to_that_conclusion.  It's actually an argument as to how to accomplish the societal good of discouraging drug use without violating individual rights.  > |3. Despite current law enforcement efforts, drugs > |are readily available to those who want them. > > This is suppossed to be an argument for keeping drugs illegal?  No. _You_missed the point.  The point is, the "War On Drugs" is a failure, and is counterproductive.  > |4. Addiction to drugs, boh legal and illegal, is > |responsible for a significant drain on the productive > |resources of our country, and this occurs in a variety > |of ways, from the cocaine-addicted babies who are > |unable to learn, to the spread of disease among > |addicts, to the tragic consequences of alcohol abuse > |and tobacco smoking. > > The crack baby scenario has been thouroughly discredited. It > just so happens that the symptoms seen in the crack babies are > identical to fetal alcohol syndrome. And the mothers who admitted > to taking crack also admitted to drinking heavily during pregnancy. > > In this country people are free to be stupid if they want to.  But, they are not free to be stupid and injure other people. Admittedly, the fetal right-to-life is outside the scope of this discussion.  However, it's ridiculous to assert, as you apparently do, that cocaine has_no effect_on the developing fetal nervous system.  Caffiene and nicotine have fetal effects too, why should cocaine be any exception?  > |5. A general economic principle of government is > |that whatever is subsidized you get more of, and > |whatever is taxed you get less of.  To be most > |effective in confronting the nation's drug problem, > |some way must be found to utilize these additional > |powers of government to make drug dealing and drug use > |less attractive. > > So make the drugs legal, tax them and use the tax money to fund a program > to tell people how studid drugs are. It has worked for the legal drugs.  If you had read my article before writing your knee-jerk response you would have seen that this is exactly what I advocated.  > |While this country's current efforts to combat > |legal drugs have succeeded in some respects, (there is > |a greater awareness of the health consequences of > |smoking, and designated-driver programs have helped > |reduce drunk driving, for example), the same cannot be > |said for the "war" on illegal drugs.  There remains a > |core group of illegal drug users which support > |international networks of smugglers, pushers, growers, > |processors, kingpins, and gangsters.  These networks > |and their "marketing activities," which include drive- > |by shootings, corrupting law enforcement authorities, > |and smuggling weapons, are directly or indirectly > |responsible for a large proportion of the crimes > |committed in our country every day. > > Each and every one of these problems is a direct result of the > drug trade being illegal.  No shit, Sherlock.  [...] > |Clearly, illegal drugs and rising crime are > |linked.  It takes only a moment's reflection to > |recognize how they are linked.  The link is money.  As > |with this country's failed effort to prohibit alcohol > |consumption, a black market has been created, in which > |greedy local monopolies, like the gangsters of a > |bygone era, have profited enormously from their > |illegal trade.  The victims of this trade include not > |only the innocent people unfortunate enough to be > |caught in the crossfire, but, I would argue, the drug > |users themselves. > > A great argument for making drugs legal.  Thank you.  How could you have missed the point so utterly? What_have_you been smoking?  > |Here then is my proposal: > > |1. Possession and use of all presently illegal > |drugs is decriminalized, but buying and selling them > |remains illegal.  'Potheads' can grow their own > |marijuana (as many already do today), other drug users > |can legally import their poison of choice as long as > |they pay the tariffs, and a barter economy of drug > |experimenters develops. > > Your solution has done nothing to eliminate the violence in > the drug trade.  BTW, how is someone going to import a drug > if buying it is illegal.  I think you need to think your solution > through a little more thouroughly.  Obviously, importers will not be buying drugs in the U.S., under U.S. jurisdiction.  Use your remaining brain cells.  > |2. Because of the barter economy which supplies > |the drug users, the black market profits that have so > |enriched the drug lords dwindle.  If these drugs can > |be obtained for 'free' or next to nothing, why buy > |them?  Nevertheless, there will be those who will seek > |to sell these "noncommercial" drugs even at relatively > |low prices.  Therefore, > > You have failed to indicate how these drugs can be obtained for > free or next to nothing. You have stated that the sale of them > is illegal.  O.K., I'll spell it out for you.  "Barter economy" means that drug users will be permitted to grow or synthesize chemically anything they choose, or to buy it outside the U.S. and bring it in, if it won't grow here.  They will also be permitted to trade with other drug users for drugs other than the ones they themselves grow or manufacture.  They will not, however be able to legally sell their drugs for money.  Both manufacture and importation of noncommercial drugs will be taxed, to discourage their use. "This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?"  > |3. Law enforcement activity is concentrated on > |those individuals who continue to buy and sell, and > |also on the crimes committed by drug users too poor to > |afford even low prices.  But here is where the > |strategy begins to differentiate between the drug > |dealers, the victimizers, and the drug users, their > |victims. > > In most cities, this is already the strategy. It has already > failed and is dragging the rest of us down with it.  Pardon me, but possession/use of these drugs is still a crime! You cannot analogize the rates at which drug users would seek treatment, and the comparative ease with which it could be made available today, when these drugs are illegal to possess/use, with what it would be were they_not_illegal to possess/use. Decriminalizing possession and use makes treatment_much_easier. Drug dealers are exploiting the weaknesses of those persons who are prone to addiction, and as such, the drug users should be left alone, not thrown in prison along with their victimizers. Drug_dealers_are the criminals, and should be treated as such. Drug addiction does not absolve you of responsiblity for your criminal actions, however.  > |4. Upon arrest for_any_crime,_suspects are > |permitted to choose whether or not they will undergo a > |drug test.  Those who choose to cooperate are informed > |that upon conviction for the crime they are accused > |of, if they are found to be a drug user, they will be > |institutionalized until they are clean, and only then > |will they begin to serve their sentence.  If they > |choose to cooperate and are already drug-free, they > |can begin to serve their sentence right away.  Those > |who choose not to undergo the drug test and are > |convicted face stiffer fines and serve longer > |sentences. > > This sounds a hell of a lot like self incrimination. Which is > unconstitutional.  If drug use is legal in your scheme, why should > the presence of drugs in anyones system influence the penalty they > receive? Much too big brotherish for my tastes.  The drug test of an arrested suspect is voluntary, not coerced, and does not therefore constitute violation of Amendment V. Those convicted who are drug users, as evidenced by the test, are in need of treatment for their problem.  Institutionalization of these adddicted criminals is, I would argue, the best way to help them straighten out.  If they refuse the test and are convicted, their sentence can be appropriately harsher, since they, unlike the addict, have no "excuse" for their crimes.  > |5. Institutionalization of drug using criminals > |serves several purposes: > > |Drug using criminals (and this includes drunk > |and/or 'stoned' drivers) are separated from their > |sources of supply, thus reducing the total number of > |drug users in society at large, and consequently > |decreasing the demand for drugs on the street, putting > |more of the remaining drug dealers out of business. > > Why should drug using criminals be treated any different from > other criminals, you have already stated that drug use is legal. > > Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com  Why not?  My objective is to discourage drug use_and_criminal behavior.  If fewer criminals do drugs out of fear of getting a harsher sentence if they are convicted, why is that not a good thing?  If fewer drug dealers (who are still criminals, BTW) can find victims, why is that not a good thing?  If fewer drug users, such as drunks, 'potheads,' etc., commit crimes out of fear of being cut off from their sources of supply, why is that not a good thing?  I'm certainly willing to debate my position. You have to read it carefully though.