wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:   > In article <1993Apr19.090836.6878@msuvx1.memst.edu>,  > kebarnes@msuvx1.memst.edu said: >  >> I'm for creating a class of "noncommercial" drugs which would include >> the currently illegal ones, which would be legal to possess, grow, >> produce, but not to sell.  Bomb the pushers back to the barter age! >> (And tax production, too.) >  > Um, why?  What's wrong with the act of selling recreational drugs, even > for mercenary reasons (e.g., getting rich)?  (Note: by "selling," I mean > "selling the product to a consenting adult at a mutually agreeable > price"... I point this out in an effort to pre-emptively prevent this > thread from getting sidetracked onto a flamefest about "pushing drugs to > schoolchildren" or the like.) >  > And why should the users be subjected to special taxation? >  > -- William December Starr  [Note: This is a repost of my earlier response to Mr. Starr, which was not properly formatted.  Apologies to those who've seen the following before:]  To explain my position on the "War On Drugs," I offer this:  Drugs And Crime: A New Approach  by Ken Barnes   Given that:  1. The trade in illegal drugs is responsible for  much of the crime which afflicts our nation.  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.  3. Despite current law enforcement efforts, drugs  are readily available to those who want them.  4. Addiction to drugs, both 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.  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.  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.  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.  Were it not for the black market, and the violent  monopoly of the drug lords, drug users might not be  the thieves, robbers, prostitutes and murderers they  have become in order to pay the high prices the drug  lords demand.  In the absence of the drug lords, most   would be, I believe, simply people with a problem,  either a moral problem_or_a medical problem, but_not_a  criminal problem.  Let me be clear however, I am_not_advocating that  we let the criminals who have been preying on our  society for these many years of Prohibition off the  hook.  On the contrary, the new approach I advocate is  one which would not result in either the government or  private industry getting into the business of  promoting crack cocaine, or any other presently  illegal drug for that matter.  Neither is it an  approach which sees law abiding citizens handing over  more and more of their freedom and privacy in an  effort to track down illegal drug users, until "the  land of the free and the home of the brave" looks like  a police state.  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.  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,  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.  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.  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.  Institutionalization provides an incentive for  drug using criminals to straighten themselves out,  before becoming part of the general prison population.  While helping protect society from crime,  institutionalization could also serve to deter drug  users from becoming criminals, since drug using  criminals, unlike other criminals, would be delayed  prior to serving their sentences by the additional  time it takes for them to sober up.  Institutionalization of drug using criminals  separate from the general prison population would also  provide a closely monitored pool of addicts who could  volunteer for research studies of new techniques and  treatments for addictive disease, with the potential  to benefit both themselves and others.  6. Dealers in illegal drugs are generally not  drug users themselves, and this is particularly true  of the drug bosses or kingpins running large illicit  organizations.  Under this proposal, dealers would be  more readily identifiable, since upon arrest they  would presumably pass the drug test, or else decline  to take it in order to avoid having to explain why  they are in possession of drugs when it is apparent  they do not use them.  Declining to take the test,  they would of course face stiffer penalties.  While  each case of attempted sale of a noncommercial drug  would have to stand on own its merits, the outcome of  a suspect's drug test could provide additional  evidence for the prosecution.  7. Just as cigarette taxes have contributed to  the decline of smoking in our country by making  cigarettes more costly while at the same time  providing revenue for anti-smoking campaigns,  noncommercial drugs should be taxed, and the money  generated should be used to combat their use.   Enforcement of this tax should be on a voluntary basis  however, and should not be used as an excuse to  infringe on the rights and privacy of noncommercial  drug users, since to do so would have the effect of  reintroducing Prohibition.  Instead, drug users will be encouraged to pay the  tax by reminding them that if untaxed drugs are ever  found in their possession during the course of routine  police operations, they will be required to pay the  tax immediately or else forfeit their untaxed drugs to  be destroyed.  If drug dealers are found to be selling  noncommercial drugs on which taxes have not been paid,  they will face additional prosecution for evading the  tax.  The strategy of adding tax evasion to drug  dealing charges is already in use in some  jurisdictions, but its effectiveness is currently  limited by the illegality of drug possession.  Revenue from drug possession taxes and import  tariffs would be used to fund anti-drug advertising  campaigns, and provide support to private sector drug  treatment programs for those unable to afford  treatment.  8. Taxpayer subsidies to all drug producers must  be ended.  Federal support of tobacco farming is both  immoral and wasteful in this era of tight budgets, and  the marijuana crops grown illicitly on federal lands  in many states must likewise be eliminated.  While my proposal would have the effect of  permitting the use of what are now illegal drugs, it  would hold the users of all drugs responsible for  their actions, and I believe, would reduce the harm  drugs have on our society, particularly the crime  caused by the illegal drug trade.  So long as we  remain a free nation, with relatively porous borders,  and freedom for our citizens to travel, we will always  have a drug problem.  Whether it takes the form of  heroin addicts dying in abandoned buildings, drunk  drivers killing and maiming others on our streets, or  emphysema patients struggling for breath after a  lifetime of smoking, the results are the same:  needless suffering and death.  As a society we must  recognize that while our society permits us to harm  ourselves with drugs, as we are already doing  (regardless of the drug laws), we must take a stand  against the harm that drugs and drug users cause to  others.  We must particularly oppose the vicious and  violent cartels which prey on the weakness of drug  users.  By taking the profits out of their deadly  trade, my proposal goes a long way towards shutting  down these powerful criminal organizations.  The question of whether drug use is a moral or  medical problem depends on which group of drug users  you're talking about.  Different drugs have different  effects, and some are more addictive than others.  The  addictiveness of a drug also often varies between  individuals, and so we have some people who can drink  alcohol in moderation, while others find they cannot  resist the bottle.  Nicotine, which former Surgeon  General C. Everett Koop declared to be as addicting as  heroin, is a legal drug with known harmful effects,  and while some people can stop smoking by willpower  alone, others continue to smoke even after treatment  for lung cancer.  For those individuals who can stop taking drugs  on their own, we may argue that because they have  chosen to use them, this represents a moral failure on  their part, or an unwillingness to face the  difficulties of life.  But for the addicts, while they  may have chosen to use drugs the first time, by the  time they discover their addiction it is too late.  We  cannot hold them responsible for their disease, any  more than we would blame someone who is drowning for  an inability to swim.  Perhaps they should have known  not to go near the water, or perhaps someone should  have warned them of the danger, but in their present  circumstances warnings will not help.  Neither does it  help for the drug dealers on the shore to be tossing  them weights.