|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 14 - 17 May 2010 - Main.JohnAlbanese
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Legalize it. All of it. | >
> | The Creed of the War on Drugs. | | | | |
<
< | -- By JohnAlbanese - 25 Feb 2010 | >
> | -- By JohnAlbanese - 25 Feb 2010 - 17 May 2010 | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | The United States' policies to combat the use of drugs are failures. The so-called “War on Drugs” costs billions of dollars, ruins millions of lives, and finances violent criminal organizations. The policies of interdiction and incarceration to fight drug use are ineffective. It is time to try a new solution. The United States should legalize and regulate the use of all drugs. | >
> | The War on Drugs is a failure. Read the first edition of this essay for a decent explanation for how it has failed. Yet the only real changes that have occurred are stricter penalties and stronger enforcement. This essay seeks to explain why change has been difficult to accomplish and offers some suggestions on how reformers should frame their arguments. | | | | |
<
< | The Current Policies Do Not Work
The current policies mainly try to limit the supply of drugs. It
attempts to do this in two ways: interdiction and incarceration. | >
> | The Creed of the War on Drugs
The War on Drugs is a winning political issue. It appeals to one of the baser of human desires: the fight of good against evil. The creed of the drug warriors is that drugs are bad, therefore prohibit drug use and punish the peddlers and the junkies. Drug prohibition also appeals to another instinctual emotion, protecting one's children. Strict drug enforcement ensures that the children of this nation are sheltered from the scourge of drugs. Combining these two emotions creates a nearly impenetrable Arnoldian creed driven by fear and righteousness that is able to bat away the thinking man's arguments with no trouble. | | | | |
<
< | Current policies? | >
> | Any argument that suggests a major strategic change in policy is easily countered with a desire for stronger enforcement and harsher penalties. Any politician that argues that the country should liberalize its drug policies is regarded as soft on crime, as unwilling to do what it takes to win the war, and weak in the face of evil. This good and evil mindset leads to a vicious, escalating cycle. Increases in law enforcement lead to more sophisticated criminal enterprises, which lead to stronger law enforcement measures, which lead to larger criminal organizations and so on. To say that the policies have failed is to invite the refrain that prevents this country from pulling out of any war: admitting failure dishonors all the efforts of people that have fought the war. For example, here is former drug czar,John Walters: | | | | |
<
< | Confiscation and Eradication are Ineffective
Interdiction is the use of police or military force to try to limit the supply of drugs before they are brought into the country. The drugs are either confiscated in transit or eradicated at the source. Confiscating drugs is largely ineffective. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates at most law enforcement is able to seize only thirty-eight percent of cocaine that enters the United States. Despite these seizures, the price of cocaine has decreased and the quality has increased since 1980. | >
> | "To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous. It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcement, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided." | | | | |
<
< | Eradication is equally useless. The United States gives hundred of millions of dollars in aid each year to foreign governments to try to eradicate the production of drugs. Eradication generally involves the spraying of toxic chemicals over vast swaths of farmland. Perhaps the most glaring example of the ineffectiveness of eradication is poppy production in Afghanistan. Although the country has been occupied by the United States for nearly a decade, poppy production is at high levels. Recently, the United States gave up on its eradication efforts to focus on alternative methods.
Incarceration is Costly and Counterproductive
Likewise, incarceration efforts have failed. Over 300,000 people in this country are imprisoned for drug law violations. A conservative estimate for the cost of imprisoning a person is $20,000 per year. This means that the government is spending about six billion dollars a year to keep drug offenders in prison. Many of these people are unable to find jobs after serving their sentence and return to using or selling drugs. Due to the violent nature of prison, imprisoning people can transform the non-violent drug offender into a violent one. | >
> | The Failure of the Rational Argument
The vast majority of arguments against the current policies are arguments that appeal to the thinking man. The criticisms state the policies are ineffective, too expensive, too narrow, and too destructive. But these criticisms never gain much political traction. Between the effectiveness of the War on Drugs as a creed, and the ease with which money can be spent with impunity on the war, few politicians will ever state the obvious truth that what is being done is not working. The failure of these arguments, like many arguments designed towards the thinking man, is that they attack the results of the creed and not the creed itself. In order to actually change the way this country deals with drugs, the creed that drugs, drug users, and drug sellers are evil has to be challenged. Only once the creed has been chipped away can real change begin to take place. | | | | |
<
< | Drug Laws Have Painful Side Effects
Besides failing to limit the supply of drugs, these laws have two tragic side effects. Since drugs are illegal, the main producers and sellers are criminal organizations, including large drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and street gangs. It is estimated that the illicit drug trade makes $321.6 billion a year. The lucrative nature of the drug trade creates competition that often leads to extreme violence. | >
> | Attacking the Creed
Lessons can be learned from the marijuana movement. By framing marijuana usage as a medicinal rather than a recreational activity, the creed that the drug itself is evil does not have the strength that it used to. Only once the drug is not regarded as a moral wrong can the financial argument even begin to have traction. The pro-pot people are making a mistake if they stick to a purely economic argument, however. They need to continue to attack the creed and not cede the moral ground to the other side. Financial arguments alone will not withstand moralistic attacks from the other side of the debate. | | | | |
<
< | UN statistics are so
good they know this number down to the nearest hundred million? And
that's a 2005 report estimating on the basis of 2003 data, which is
rather a long time ago. Surely it's not exactly $321.6 billion any
more? Don't you think "hundreds of billions" would be about as good
as the data justifies? Order of magnitude is usually what we really
need to know and the most we will remember. | >
> | This attack on the creed can work for harder drugs like heroin and cocaine, even though it may be more difficult. Most illicit drugs were originally prescribed medicinally, and their medicinal value should be emphasized by those seeking reform. The point is not to advocate that doctors prescribe these drugs to patients. The point is to show that these drugs are not inherently evil and therefore, those that use them should not incur criminal punishment. | | | | |
<
< | In addition, the drug laws are particularly harsh on addicts. Since drug use is illegal, addicts are unable to receive the help that they need. They are forced to try to hide their addiction and are reluctant to seek treatment. Due to a lack of clean needles, they are at risk for AIDS and other diseases. Because of the the unregulated nature of the product, addicts never truly know what they are taking. Drugs are often cut with poisonous chemicals such as bleach or rat poison. Addicts are one bad hit away from death. | >
> | Another aspect of the creed that should be attacked is the notion that drug users are bad people. Many people are scared of drug users because they are associated with violence and crime. Drug policies will change once the drug user is made into into an empathetic figure. The marijuana movement once again is instructive; drug users should be talked about as people dealing with pain rather than people dealing with the disease of drug addiction. The object of this type of argument is to change the image of drug users from selfish, weak-minded hedonists to people that are seeking relief from physical and mental pain. If the reason people use drugs is framed as not a moral failure, but as a coping mechanism for dealing with pain, then the creed of the evil drug user loses its strength. | | | | |
<
< | The lessons to be learned from the failures of interdiction and incarceration are simple. Drug producers will produce more drugs to compensate for the amount that will be seized or eradicated. People will continue to sell drugs because it is a lucrative business. Without reducing demand, the supply of drugs will not decrease.
Drugs Should Be Legalized and Regulated
The government should legalize use and regulate the sale of all drugs. This policy will eliminate current wasteful expenditures while providing a source of revenue, stop the harmful side effects of current laws, and allow the government to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Legalization and Regulation Will Provide Revenue
Besides eliminating ineffective and costly efforts to limit supply, legalizing drugs will provide the government with a source of revenue. Currently illegal drugs should be sold and taxed like tobacco and alcohol. In addition to regmoving this stream of revenue from violent organizations, this money can be used to fund education and rehabilitation programs to try to decrease demand for drugs. These programs are cheaper and more effective than attempts to limit supply.
Legalization Will Provide Better Treatment
Moving these substances out of the black market will benefit the victims of drugs, the addicts. Drugs will be safer to take as there is no danger that they will be cut with poisonous substances. Addicts will no longer be at risk for AIDS by using dirty needles. The government will be able to identify at-risk people and offer them treatment. The Swiss program for treating heroin addicts is a good model to follow. The users go to center where they can obtain the drugs. These centers offer rehabilitative, medical, and educational services.
Legalization Will Not Increase Use Among Youth
Contrary to popular belief, legalization will not necessarily lead to an increase in use. Portugal, while not legalizing, has decriminalized drug use since 2001. Many at the time feared that drug use would increase, especially among children. This has not happened. The use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and ecstacy among youth has actually fallen. This policy has allowed the Portugese government to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment for drug use. | >
> | Lastly, publicize the pernicious effects of the drug war in a way to make people more afraid of the negative effects of drug prohibition rather than drug use. A good example is this video of a SWAT team storming a suburban house in the middle of the night in order to serve a warrant. During the raid, they find a small amount of pot and shoot the family dogs in front of a child. The video aptly demonstrates the absurd consequences of the drug war where the children in the house are more in more danger from the police officers enforcing the prohibition rather than the drugs or the drug users. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocaine user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate.
I think you mean
"cocaine and marijuana" user, don't you?
There are many more
rational things that we could do than what we do. I think there is
no one professionally associated with prosecuting or defending or
apprehending or sentencing people in the drug trade who doesn't
believe that something would be better than the current approach.
Not everyone would endorse your approach, either.
But writing down rational improvements on the current system is
hardly important, because no rational improvement on the current
system can gain a sufficient degree of political support. You don't
need to have explained to you, I'm sure, why Mr Obama is
absolutely certain not to be the President of the United States who
tries to legalize narcotics. So was John McCain. Stupid as the
former Governor of Alaska is, she's not that dumb either. Mitt
Romney perhaps? John Edwards? Let's get real.
So that's what the essay might more usefully be about. The argument
to the thinking man fails, because that's not how politics works, I
seem to hear a still, small voice saying. All this stuff is so old
that even the data in the statistics are ancient. If it were going
to work, it would have worked by now. If you're not interested in
Arnold, you are interested in the consequences of his ideas, because
you're up against them.
| >
> | The War on Drugs is not designed to be the best way to control drug use; it is designed to be a politically useful policy that satisfies some primal human desires. Successful reform will require the breakdown of the creed that drives the policies, which necessitates attacking the creed directly rather than attacking the results of the policies. | | |
I moved the discussion here.
-- JohnAlbanese - 02 Mar 2010
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 13 - 03 Apr 2010 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Legalize it. All of it. | | | The United States' policies to combat the use of drugs are failures. The so-called “War on Drugs” costs billions of dollars, ruins millions of lives, and finances violent criminal organizations. The policies of interdiction and incarceration to fight drug use are ineffective. It is time to try a new solution. The United States should legalize and regulate the use of all drugs.
The Current Policies Do Not Work | |
<
< | The current policies mainly try to limit the supply of drugs. It attempts to do this in two ways: interdiction and incarceration. | >
> | The current policies mainly try to limit the supply of drugs. It
attempts to do this in two ways: interdiction and incarceration.
Current policies? | | | Confiscation and Eradication are Ineffective
Interdiction is the use of police or military force to try to limit the supply of drugs before they are brought into the country. The drugs are either confiscated in transit or eradicated at the source. Confiscating drugs is largely ineffective. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates at most law enforcement is able to seize only thirty-eight percent of cocaine that enters the United States. Despite these seizures, the price of cocaine has decreased and the quality has increased since 1980. | | | Drug Laws Have Painful Side Effects
Besides failing to limit the supply of drugs, these laws have two tragic side effects. Since drugs are illegal, the main producers and sellers are criminal organizations, including large drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and street gangs. It is estimated that the illicit drug trade makes $321.6 billion a year. The lucrative nature of the drug trade creates competition that often leads to extreme violence. | |
>
> | UN statistics are so
good they know this number down to the nearest hundred million? And
that's a 2005 report estimating on the basis of 2003 data, which is
rather a long time ago. Surely it's not exactly $321.6 billion any
more? Don't you think "hundreds of billions" would be about as good
as the data justifies? Order of magnitude is usually what we really
need to know and the most we will remember. | | | In addition, the drug laws are particularly harsh on addicts. Since drug use is illegal, addicts are unable to receive the help that they need. They are forced to try to hide their addiction and are reluctant to seek treatment. Due to a lack of clean needles, they are at risk for AIDS and other diseases. Because of the the unregulated nature of the product, addicts never truly know what they are taking. Drugs are often cut with poisonous chemicals such as bleach or rat poison. Addicts are one bad hit away from death.
The lessons to be learned from the failures of interdiction and incarceration are simple. Drug producers will produce more drugs to compensate for the amount that will be seized or eradicated. People will continue to sell drugs because it is a lucrative business. Without reducing demand, the supply of drugs will not decrease. | | |
Legalization and Regulation Will Provide Revenue | |
<
< | Besides eliminating ineffective and costly efforts to limit supply, legalizing drugs will provide the government with a source of revenue. Currently illegal drugs should be sold and taxed like tobacco and alcohol. In addition to removing this stream of revenue from violent organizations, this money can be used to fund education and rehabilitation programs to try to decrease demand for drugs. These programs are cheaper and more effective than attempts to limit supply. | >
> | Besides eliminating ineffective and costly efforts to limit supply, legalizing drugs will provide the government with a source of revenue. Currently illegal drugs should be sold and taxed like tobacco and alcohol. In addition to regmoving this stream of revenue from violent organizations, this money can be used to fund education and rehabilitation programs to try to decrease demand for drugs. These programs are cheaper and more effective than attempts to limit supply. | | | Legalization Will Provide Better Treatment
Moving these substances out of the black market will benefit the victims of drugs, the addicts. Drugs will be safer to take as there is no danger that they will be cut with poisonous substances. Addicts will no longer be at risk for AIDS by using dirty needles. The government will be able to identify at-risk people and offer them treatment. The Swiss program for treating heroin addicts is a good model to follow. The users go to center where they can obtain the drugs. These centers offer rehabilitative, medical, and educational services. | | | Conclusion
Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocaine user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate. | |
<
< |
I moved the discussion here.
-- JohnAlbanese - 02 Mar 2010 | >
> | I think you mean
"cocaine and marijuana" user, don't you? | | | | |
<
< |
| >
> | There are many more
rational things that we could do than what we do. I think there is
no one professionally associated with prosecuting or defending or
apprehending or sentencing people in the drug trade who doesn't
believe that something would be better than the current approach.
Not everyone would endorse your approach, either.
But writing down rational improvements on the current system is
hardly important, because no rational improvement on the current
system can gain a sufficient degree of political support. You don't
need to have explained to you, I'm sure, why Mr Obama is
absolutely certain not to be the President of the United States who
tries to legalize narcotics. So was John McCain. Stupid as the
former Governor of Alaska is, she's not that dumb either. Mitt
Romney perhaps? John Edwards? Let's get real.
So that's what the essay might more usefully be about. The argument
to the thinking man fails, because that's not how politics works, I
seem to hear a still, small voice saying. All this stuff is so old
that even the data in the statistics are ancient. If it were going
to work, it would have worked by now. If you're not interested in
Arnold, you are interested in the consequences of his ideas, because
you're up against them. | | | | |
<
< | You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: | >
> | | | | | |
<
< | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JohnAlbanese | | | | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
I moved the discussion here.
-- JohnAlbanese - 02 Mar 2010 | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 12 - 03 Mar 2010 - Main.JohnAlbanese
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | The Current Policies Do Not Work
The current policies mainly try to limit the supply of drugs. It attempts to do this in two ways: interdiction and incarceration. | |
<
< | ---+++ Confiscation and Eradication are Ineffective
---+++ Confiscation and Interdiction are Ineffective
Interdiction is the use of police or military force to try to limit the supply of drugs before they are brought into the country. The drugs are either confiscated in transit or eradicated at the source. Confiscating drugs is largely ineffective. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates at most law enforcement is able to seize only thirty-eight percent of cocaine that enters the United States. Despite these seizures, the price of cocaine has decreased and the quality has increased since 1980. | >
> | Confiscation and Eradication are Ineffective
Interdiction is the use of police or military force to try to limit the supply of drugs before they are brought into the country. The drugs are either confiscated in transit or eradicated at the source. Confiscating drugs is largely ineffective. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates at most law enforcement is able to seize only thirty-eight percent of cocaine that enters the United States. Despite these seizures, the price of cocaine has decreased and the quality has increased since 1980. | | | Eradication is equally useless. The United States gives hundred of millions of dollars in aid each year to foreign governments to try to eradicate the production of drugs. Eradication generally involves the spraying of toxic chemicals over vast swaths of farmland. Perhaps the most glaring example of the ineffectiveness of eradication is poppy production in Afghanistan. Although the country has been occupied by the United States for nearly a decade, poppy production is at high levels. Recently, the United States gave up on its eradication efforts to focus on alternative methods.
Incarceration is Costly and Counterproductive | | | Contrary to popular belief, legalization will not necessarily lead to an increase in use. Portugal, while not legalizing, has decriminalized drug use since 2001. Many at the time feared that drug use would increase, especially among children. This has not happened. The use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and ecstacy among youth has actually fallen. This policy has allowed the Portugese government to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment for drug use.
Conclusion | |
<
< | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate.
Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate millions of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate.
----
I moved the discussion here.
-- JohnAlbanese - 02 Mar 2010
Why stop at drugs?
-- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010 | >
> | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocaine user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate. | | | | |
<
< | Derek, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay.
-- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010
Read my paper  -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010
What bothers me more are the widespread misconceptions about drugs. MDMA, for example, during its DEA scheduling was recommended for Schedule III. Any doctor who knew anything about the drug said it had medicinal value. It had been used by psychotherapists with extraordinary success, some even calling it a miracle drug. For some, it blew anti-depressants out of the water. Of course, it ended up on the Schedule I, "no recognized medicinal value" along with Marijuana. Thank the pharmaceutical companies.
Drug policy is, and has always been, about control. For drug companies, it forces you to use their products. And the drug companies will do everything in its power to prevent drug laws from ever changing. I can't think of any other reason why you can pick up powerful dissociatives and schedule I precursors at your local Rite Aid. Drug laws are perfect for social control because they are so easy to selectively enforce. The only reason drugs aren't legalized is because more people are not arrested: white, black, rich, poor. Believe me, when people see their own uncles, aunts, parents, children getting arrested for smoking pot, it will become legalized. If legalization is your goal, then decriminalization is your worst enemy. Decriminalization is a strategic move taken by the government in order to maintain control in any way it can.
I gots more to say, but I'll leave it here for now. But to answer Derek's question--I wouldn't stop at drugs.
-- MatthewZorn - 28 Feb 2010
How about this - instead of trying to go whole hog and ask "why stop", let's think about how to make an argument of why it wouldn't go any further. Granted, I'm not opposed to the idea of pushing further, but that is probably not going to be an overwhelmingly popular argument. Heck, even this argument will meet stiff resistance, and it makes a pretty good deal of sense. Most people who may not be totally against the legalization of drugs may be afraid of the "slippery slope" that follows the legalization of a vice crime. If there's ever going to be a change like this one, it will be met with fear, so we should look at if those fears can be realistically met and calmed. I'll give it a shot.
First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw. The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way.
Sweet, so let's just say we beat the slippery slope argument (upsetting however many hundreds of years of legal thought). What's next? If we legalize this specific type of "vice crime" then the next thing to deal with would be the idea/argument/fear of a moral unraveling. To be honest, I'd anticipate this noise coming largely from conservative christians, people with a lot of money in pharmacy, and your run of the mill (ignorant) racists.
Conservative christians is pretty self-explanatory, these are the people who worked their asses off to get an alcohol ban written into the Constitution, and did it. Not exactly a group that's going to take the legalization of drugs sitting down, no matter what the economic/social incentive. They'll be a difficult group to contend with, they're well funded, and arguing with a belief is like having a staring contest with the sun; you're going to lose in more ways than one. People with lots of money in pharmaceuticals are going to be difficult to persuade as well; no one wants to give up a money making monopoly. Money has power, so not only will this group be tough to persuade, but they'll be able to throw a lot of money into propaganda (DARE anyone?). Finally, you've got your (special) racists, who will most likely find another group to belong to real quick as to not be labeled racist (that's not PC anymore after all). These folks will be among the special few who still believe drug use will lead to an intermingling of the races, and hate that idea. They are still out there. Again, they're not going to be persuaded.
With at least three groups (at least two powerful and well funded) against this proposition, all of whom will be firing from a moral high ground, it's going to take baby steps if even the legalization of drugs is going to work. While not losing sight of the end goal is important, more necessary is taking the small steps to get there. Start with what already seems to be happening - marijuana. Medicinal use is legal in several states, and several more have laws being considered, so this could be fertile ground. If you've got a plan, this ought to be the first step.
-- MichaelHilton - 02 Mar 2010
| >
> |
I moved the discussion here.
-- JohnAlbanese - 02 Mar 2010 | | |
| | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JohnAlbanese | |
<
< | _Note_: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list_Note_: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | >
> | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 11 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.JonathanWaisnor
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | The Current Policies Do Not Work
The current policies mainly try to limit the supply of drugs. It attempts to do this in two ways: interdiction and incarceration. | |
<
< | Confiscation and Eradication are Ineffective
Interdiction is the use of police or military force to try to limit the supply of drugs before they are brought into the country. The drugs are either confiscated in transit or eradicated at the source. Confiscating drugs is largely ineffective. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates at most law enforcement is able to seize only thirty-eight percent of cocaine that enters the United States. Despite these seizures, the price of cocaine has decreased and the quality has increased since 1980. | >
> | ---+++ Confiscation and Eradication are Ineffective
---+++ Confiscation and Interdiction are Ineffective
Interdiction is the use of police or military force to try to limit the supply of drugs before they are brought into the country. The drugs are either confiscated in transit or eradicated at the source. Confiscating drugs is largely ineffective. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates at most law enforcement is able to seize only thirty-eight percent of cocaine that enters the United States. Despite these seizures, the price of cocaine has decreased and the quality has increased since 1980. | | | Eradication is equally useless. The United States gives hundred of millions of dollars in aid each year to foreign governments to try to eradicate the production of drugs. Eradication generally involves the spraying of toxic chemicals over vast swaths of farmland. Perhaps the most glaring example of the ineffectiveness of eradication is poppy production in Afghanistan. Although the country has been occupied by the United States for nearly a decade, poppy production is at high levels. Recently, the United States gave up on its eradication efforts to focus on alternative methods.
Incarceration is Costly and Counterproductive | | | Contrary to popular belief, legalization will not necessarily lead to an increase in use. Portugal, while not legalizing, has decriminalized drug use since 2001. Many at the time feared that drug use would increase, especially among children. This has not happened. The use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and ecstacy among youth has actually fallen. This policy has allowed the Portugese government to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment for drug use.
Conclusion | |
<
< | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate.
I moved the discussion here.
-- JohnAlbanese - 02 Mar 2010 | >
> | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate.
Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate millions of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate.
----
I moved the discussion here.
-- JohnAlbanese - 02 Mar 2010
Why stop at drugs?
-- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010
Derek, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay.
-- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010
Read my paper -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010
What bothers me more are the widespread misconceptions about drugs. MDMA, for example, during its DEA scheduling was recommended for Schedule III. Any doctor who knew anything about the drug said it had medicinal value. It had been used by psychotherapists with extraordinary success, some even calling it a miracle drug. For some, it blew anti-depressants out of the water. Of course, it ended up on the Schedule I, "no recognized medicinal value" along with Marijuana. Thank the pharmaceutical companies.
Drug policy is, and has always been, about control. For drug companies, it forces you to use their products. And the drug companies will do everything in its power to prevent drug laws from ever changing. I can't think of any other reason why you can pick up powerful dissociatives and schedule I precursors at your local Rite Aid. Drug laws are perfect for social control because they are so easy to selectively enforce. The only reason drugs aren't legalized is because more people are not arrested: white, black, rich, poor. Believe me, when people see their own uncles, aunts, parents, children getting arrested for smoking pot, it will become legalized. If legalization is your goal, then decriminalization is your worst enemy. Decriminalization is a strategic move taken by the government in order to maintain control in any way it can.
I gots more to say, but I'll leave it here for now. But to answer Derek's question--I wouldn't stop at drugs.
-- MatthewZorn - 28 Feb 2010
How about this - instead of trying to go whole hog and ask "why stop", let's think about how to make an argument of why it wouldn't go any further. Granted, I'm not opposed to the idea of pushing further, but that is probably not going to be an overwhelmingly popular argument. Heck, even this argument will meet stiff resistance, and it makes a pretty good deal of sense. Most people who may not be totally against the legalization of drugs may be afraid of the "slippery slope" that follows the legalization of a vice crime. If there's ever going to be a change like this one, it will be met with fear, so we should look at if those fears can be realistically met and calmed. I'll give it a shot.
First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw. The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way.
Sweet, so let's just say we beat the slippery slope argument (upsetting however many hundreds of years of legal thought). What's next? If we legalize this specific type of "vice crime" then the next thing to deal with would be the idea/argument/fear of a moral unraveling. To be honest, I'd anticipate this noise coming largely from conservative christians, people with a lot of money in pharmacy, and your run of the mill (ignorant) racists.
Conservative christians is pretty self-explanatory, these are the people who worked their asses off to get an alcohol ban written into the Constitution, and did it. Not exactly a group that's going to take the legalization of drugs sitting down, no matter what the economic/social incentive. They'll be a difficult group to contend with, they're well funded, and arguing with a belief is like having a staring contest with the sun; you're going to lose in more ways than one. People with lots of money in pharmaceuticals are going to be difficult to persuade as well; no one wants to give up a money making monopoly. Money has power, so not only will this group be tough to persuade, but they'll be able to throw a lot of money into propaganda (DARE anyone?). Finally, you've got your (special) racists, who will most likely find another group to belong to real quick as to not be labeled racist (that's not PC anymore after all). These folks will be among the special few who still believe drug use will lead to an intermingling of the races, and hate that idea. They are still out there. Again, they're not going to be persuaded.
With at least three groups (at least two powerful and well funded) against this proposition, all of whom will be firing from a moral high ground, it's going to take baby steps if even the legalization of drugs is going to work. While not losing sight of the end goal is important, more necessary is taking the small steps to get there. Start with what already seems to be happening - marijuana. Medicinal use is legal in several states, and several more have laws being considered, so this could be fertile ground. If you've got a plan, this ought to be the first step.
-- MichaelHilton - 02 Mar 2010
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. | | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JohnAlbanese | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | >
> | _Note_: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list_Note_: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 10 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.JohnAlbanese
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | The Current Policies Do Not Work
The current policies mainly try to limit the supply of drugs. It attempts to do this in two ways: interdiction and incarceration. | |
<
< | Confiscation and Interdiction are Ineffective | >
> | Confiscation and Eradication are Ineffective | | | Interdiction is the use of police or military force to try to limit the supply of drugs before they are brought into the country. The drugs are either confiscated in transit or eradicated at the source. Confiscating drugs is largely ineffective. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates at most law enforcement is able to seize only thirty-eight percent of cocaine that enters the United States. Despite these seizures, the price of cocaine has decreased and the quality has increased since 1980.
Eradication is equally useless. The United States gives hundred of millions of dollars in aid each year to foreign governments to try to eradicate the production of drugs. Eradication generally involves the spraying of toxic chemicals over vast swaths of farmland. Perhaps the most glaring example of the ineffectiveness of eradication is poppy production in Afghanistan. Although the country has been occupied by the United States for nearly a decade, poppy production is at high levels. Recently, the United States gave up on its eradication efforts to focus on alternative methods. | | | Contrary to popular belief, legalization will not necessarily lead to an increase in use. Portugal, while not legalizing, has decriminalized drug use since 2001. Many at the time feared that drug use would increase, especially among children. This has not happened. The use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and ecstacy among youth has actually fallen. This policy has allowed the Portugese government to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment for drug use.
Conclusion | |
<
< | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate millions of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate. | >
> | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate. | | |
| |
<
< | Why stop at drugs?
-- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010
Derek, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay.
-- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010
Read my paper -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010
What bothers me more are the widespread misconceptions about drugs. MDMA, for example, during its DEA scheduling was recommended for Schedule III. Any doctor who knew anything about the drug said it had medicinal value. It had been used by psychotherapists with extraordinary success, some even calling it a miracle drug. For some, it blew anti-depressants out of the water. Of course, it ended up on the Schedule I, "no recognized medicinal value" along with Marijuana. Thank the pharmaceutical companies.
Drug policy is, and has always been, about control. For drug companies, it forces you to use their products. And the drug companies will do everything in its power to prevent drug laws from ever changing. I can't think of any other reason why you can pick up powerful dissociatives and schedule I precursors at your local Rite Aid. Drug laws are perfect for social control because they are so easy to selectively enforce. The only reason drugs aren't legalized is because more people are not arrested: white, black, rich, poor. Believe me, when people see their own uncles, aunts, parents, children getting arrested for smoking pot, it will become legalized. If legalization is your goal, then decriminalization is your worst enemy. Decriminalization is a strategic move taken by the government in order to maintain control in any way it can.
I gots more to say, but I'll leave it here for now. But to answer Derek's question--I wouldn't stop at drugs.
-- MatthewZorn - 28 Feb 2010
How about this - instead of trying to go whole hog and ask "why stop", let's think about how to make an argument of why it wouldn't go any further. Granted, I'm not opposed to the idea of pushing further, but that is probably not going to be an overwhelmingly popular argument. Heck, even this argument will meet stiff resistance, and it makes a pretty good deal of sense. Most people who may not be totally against the legalization of drugs may be afraid of the "slippery slope" that follows the legalization of a vice crime. If there's ever going to be a change like this one, it will be met with fear, so we should look at if those fears can be realistically met and calmed. I'll give it a shot.
First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw. The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way.
Sweet, so let's just say we beat the slippery slope argument (upsetting however many hundreds of years of legal thought). What's next? If we legalize this specific type of "vice crime" then the next thing to deal with would be the idea/argument/fear of a moral unraveling. To be honest, I'd anticipate this noise coming largely from conservative christians, people with a lot of money in pharmacy, and your run of the mill (ignorant) racists.
Conservative christians is pretty self-explanatory, these are the people who worked their asses off to get an alcohol ban written into the Constitution, and did it. Not exactly a group that's going to take the legalization of drugs sitting down, no matter what the economic/social incentive. They'll be a difficult group to contend with, they're well funded, and arguing with a belief is like having a staring contest with the sun; you're going to lose in more ways than one. People with lots of money in pharmaceuticals are going to be difficult to persuade as well; no one wants to give up a money making monopoly. Money has power, so not only will this group be tough to persuade, but they'll be able to throw a lot of money into propaganda (DARE anyone?). Finally, you've got your (special) racists, who will most likely find another group to belong to real quick as to not be labeled racist (that's not PC anymore after all). These folks will be among the special few who still believe drug use will lead to an intermingling of the races, and hate that idea. They are still out there. Again, they're not going to be persuaded.
With at least three groups (at least two powerful and well funded) against this proposition, all of whom will be firing from a moral high ground, it's going to take baby steps if even the legalization of drugs is going to work. While not losing sight of the end goal is important, more necessary is taking the small steps to get there. Start with what already seems to be happening - marijuana. Medicinal use is legal in several states, and several more have laws being considered, so this could be fertile ground. If you've got a plan, this ought to be the first step.
-- MichaelHilton - 02 Mar 2010
| >
> | I moved the discussion here.
-- JohnAlbanese - 02 Mar 2010 | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 9 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.DRussellKraft
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate millions of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate.
| |
<
< | Why stop at drugs? | >
> | Why stop at drugs? | | | -- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010
Derek, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay.
-- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | | >
> | Read my paper -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010 | | |
What bothers me more are the widespread misconceptions about drugs. MDMA, for example, during its DEA scheduling was recommended for Schedule III. Any doctor who knew anything about the drug said it had medicinal value. It had been used by psychotherapists with extraordinary success, some even calling it a miracle drug. For some, it blew anti-depressants out of the water. Of course, it ended up on the Schedule I, "no recognized medicinal value" along with Marijuana. Thank the pharmaceutical companies. | | | How about this - instead of trying to go whole hog and ask "why stop", let's think about how to make an argument of why it wouldn't go any further. Granted, I'm not opposed to the idea of pushing further, but that is probably not going to be an overwhelmingly popular argument. Heck, even this argument will meet stiff resistance, and it makes a pretty good deal of sense. Most people who may not be totally against the legalization of drugs may be afraid of the "slippery slope" that follows the legalization of a vice crime. If there's ever going to be a change like this one, it will be met with fear, so we should look at if those fears can be realistically met and calmed. I'll give it a shot. | |
<
< | First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw? . The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way. | >
> | First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw. The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way. | | | Sweet, so let's just say we beat the slippery slope argument (upsetting however many hundreds of years of legal thought). What's next? If we legalize this specific type of "vice crime" then the next thing to deal with would be the idea/argument/fear of a moral unraveling. To be honest, I'd anticipate this noise coming largely from conservative christians, people with a lot of money in pharmacy, and your run of the mill (ignorant) racists. |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 8 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.MichaelHilton
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | I gots more to say, but I'll leave it here for now. But to answer Derek's question--I wouldn't stop at drugs.
-- MatthewZorn - 28 Feb 2010 | |
>
> |
How about this - instead of trying to go whole hog and ask "why stop", let's think about how to make an argument of why it wouldn't go any further. Granted, I'm not opposed to the idea of pushing further, but that is probably not going to be an overwhelmingly popular argument. Heck, even this argument will meet stiff resistance, and it makes a pretty good deal of sense. Most people who may not be totally against the legalization of drugs may be afraid of the "slippery slope" that follows the legalization of a vice crime. If there's ever going to be a change like this one, it will be met with fear, so we should look at if those fears can be realistically met and calmed. I'll give it a shot.
First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw? . The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way.
Sweet, so let's just say we beat the slippery slope argument (upsetting however many hundreds of years of legal thought). What's next? If we legalize this specific type of "vice crime" then the next thing to deal with would be the idea/argument/fear of a moral unraveling. To be honest, I'd anticipate this noise coming largely from conservative christians, people with a lot of money in pharmacy, and your run of the mill (ignorant) racists.
Conservative christians is pretty self-explanatory, these are the people who worked their asses off to get an alcohol ban written into the Constitution, and did it. Not exactly a group that's going to take the legalization of drugs sitting down, no matter what the economic/social incentive. They'll be a difficult group to contend with, they're well funded, and arguing with a belief is like having a staring contest with the sun; you're going to lose in more ways than one. People with lots of money in pharmaceuticals are going to be difficult to persuade as well; no one wants to give up a money making monopoly. Money has power, so not only will this group be tough to persuade, but they'll be able to throw a lot of money into propaganda (DARE anyone?). Finally, you've got your (special) racists, who will most likely find another group to belong to real quick as to not be labeled racist (that's not PC anymore after all). These folks will be among the special few who still believe drug use will lead to an intermingling of the races, and hate that idea. They are still out there. Again, they're not going to be persuaded.
With at least three groups (at least two powerful and well funded) against this proposition, all of whom will be firing from a moral high ground, it's going to take baby steps if even the legalization of drugs is going to work. While not losing sight of the end goal is important, more necessary is taking the small steps to get there. Start with what already seems to be happening - marijuana. Medicinal use is legal in several states, and several more have laws being considered, so this could be fertile ground. If you've got a plan, this ought to be the first step.
-- MichaelHilton - 02 Mar 2010 | | |
|
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 7 - 01 Mar 2010 - Main.PeterCavanaugh
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Why stop at drugs?
-- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | Russell, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay. | >
> | Derek, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay. | | | -- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010 |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 6 - 01 Mar 2010 - Main.JohnAlbanese
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Eradication is equally useless. The United States gives hundred of millions of dollars in aid each year to foreign governments to try to eradicate the production of drugs. Eradication generally involves the spraying of toxic chemicals over vast swaths of farmland. Perhaps the most glaring example of the ineffectiveness of eradication is poppy production in Afghanistan. Although the country has been occupied by the United States for nearly a decade, poppy production is at high levels. Recently, the United States gave up on its eradication efforts to focus on alternative methods.
Incarceration is Costly and Counterproductive | |
<
< | Likewise, incarceration efforts have failed. Over 300, 000 people in this country are imprisoned for drug law violations. A conservative estimate for the cost of imprisoning a person is $20, 000 per year. This means that the government is spending about six billion dollars a year to keep drug offenders in prison. Many of these people are unable to find jobs after serving their sentence and return to using or selling drugs. Due to the violent nature of prison, imprisoning people can transform the non-violent drug offender into a violent one. | >
> | Likewise, incarceration efforts have failed. Over 300, 000 people in this country are imprisoned for drug law violations. A conservative estimate for the cost of imprisoning a person is $20, 000 per year. This means that the government is spending about six billion dollars a year to keep drug offenders in prison. Many of these people are unable to find jobs after serving their sentence and return to using or selling drugs. Due to the violent nature of prison, imprisoning people can transform the non-violent drug offender into a violent one. | | | Drug Laws Have Painful Side Effects
Besides failing to limit the supply of drugs, these laws have two tragic side effects. Since drugs are illegal, the main producers and sellers are criminal organizations, including large drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and street gangs. It is estimated that the illicit drug trade makes $321.6 billion a year. The lucrative nature of the drug trade creates competition that often leads to extreme violence. |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 5 - 28 Feb 2010 - Main.MatthewZorn
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Russell, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay.
-- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010 | |
>
> |
What bothers me more are the widespread misconceptions about drugs. MDMA, for example, during its DEA scheduling was recommended for Schedule III. Any doctor who knew anything about the drug said it had medicinal value. It had been used by psychotherapists with extraordinary success, some even calling it a miracle drug. For some, it blew anti-depressants out of the water. Of course, it ended up on the Schedule I, "no recognized medicinal value" along with Marijuana. Thank the pharmaceutical companies.
Drug policy is, and has always been, about control. For drug companies, it forces you to use their products. And the drug companies will do everything in its power to prevent drug laws from ever changing. I can't think of any other reason why you can pick up powerful dissociatives and schedule I precursors at your local Rite Aid. Drug laws are perfect for social control because they are so easy to selectively enforce. The only reason drugs aren't legalized is because more people are not arrested: white, black, rich, poor. Believe me, when people see their own uncles, aunts, parents, children getting arrested for smoking pot, it will become legalized. If legalization is your goal, then decriminalization is your worst enemy. Decriminalization is a strategic move taken by the government in order to maintain control in any way it can.
I gots more to say, but I'll leave it here for now. But to answer Derek's question--I wouldn't stop at drugs.
-- MatthewZorn - 28 Feb 2010
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 4 - 28 Feb 2010 - Main.PeterCavanaugh
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Why stop at drugs?
-- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010 | |
>
> | Russell, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay.
-- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010 | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 3 - 28 Feb 2010 - Main.DRussellKraft
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Conclusion
Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate millions of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate.
| |
>
> | Why stop at drugs?
-- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010
| | | You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 2 - 26 Feb 2010 - Main.JohnAlbanese
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | Legalize it. All of it. | | | -- By JohnAlbanese - 25 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1 | >
> | Introduction
The United States' policies to combat the use of drugs are failures. The so-called “War on Drugs” costs billions of dollars, ruins millions of lives, and finances violent criminal organizations. The policies of interdiction and incarceration to fight drug use are ineffective. It is time to try a new solution. The United States should legalize and regulate the use of all drugs. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | The Current Policies Do Not Work
The current policies mainly try to limit the supply of drugs. It attempts to do this in two ways: interdiction and incarceration. | | | | |
>
> | Confiscation and Interdiction are Ineffective
Interdiction is the use of police or military force to try to limit the supply of drugs before they are brought into the country. The drugs are either confiscated in transit or eradicated at the source. Confiscating drugs is largely ineffective. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates at most law enforcement is able to seize only thirty-eight percent of cocaine that enters the United States. Despite these seizures, the price of cocaine has decreased and the quality has increased since 1980. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | Eradication is equally useless. The United States gives hundred of millions of dollars in aid each year to foreign governments to try to eradicate the production of drugs. Eradication generally involves the spraying of toxic chemicals over vast swaths of farmland. Perhaps the most glaring example of the ineffectiveness of eradication is poppy production in Afghanistan. Although the country has been occupied by the United States for nearly a decade, poppy production is at high levels. Recently, the United States gave up on its eradication efforts to focus on alternative methods.
Incarceration is Costly and Counterproductive
Likewise, incarceration efforts have failed. Over 300, 000 people in this country are imprisoned for drug law violations. A conservative estimate for the cost of imprisoning a person is $20, 000 per year. This means that the government is spending about six billion dollars a year to keep drug offenders in prison. Many of these people are unable to find jobs after serving their sentence and return to using or selling drugs. Due to the violent nature of prison, imprisoning people can transform the non-violent drug offender into a violent one. | | | | |
>
> | Drug Laws Have Painful Side Effects
Besides failing to limit the supply of drugs, these laws have two tragic side effects. Since drugs are illegal, the main producers and sellers are criminal organizations, including large drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and street gangs. It is estimated that the illicit drug trade makes $321.6 billion a year. The lucrative nature of the drug trade creates competition that often leads to extreme violence. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | In addition, the drug laws are particularly harsh on addicts. Since drug use is illegal, addicts are unable to receive the help that they need. They are forced to try to hide their addiction and are reluctant to seek treatment. Due to a lack of clean needles, they are at risk for AIDS and other diseases. Because of the the unregulated nature of the product, addicts never truly know what they are taking. Drugs are often cut with poisonous chemicals such as bleach or rat poison. Addicts are one bad hit away from death. | | | | |
>
> | The lessons to be learned from the failures of interdiction and incarceration are simple. Drug producers will produce more drugs to compensate for the amount that will be seized or eradicated. People will continue to sell drugs because it is a lucrative business. Without reducing demand, the supply of drugs will not decrease. | | | | |
>
> | Drugs Should Be Legalized and Regulated
The government should legalize use and regulate the sale of all drugs. This policy will eliminate current wasteful expenditures while providing a source of revenue, stop the harmful side effects of current laws, and allow the government to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. | | | | |
<
< | Section II | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | Legalization and Regulation Will Provide Revenue
Besides eliminating ineffective and costly efforts to limit supply, legalizing drugs will provide the government with a source of revenue. Currently illegal drugs should be sold and taxed like tobacco and alcohol. In addition to removing this stream of revenue from violent organizations, this money can be used to fund education and rehabilitation programs to try to decrease demand for drugs. These programs are cheaper and more effective than attempts to limit supply. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | Legalization Will Provide Better Treatment
Moving these substances out of the black market will benefit the victims of drugs, the addicts. Drugs will be safer to take as there is no danger that they will be cut with poisonous substances. Addicts will no longer be at risk for AIDS by using dirty needles. The government will be able to identify at-risk people and offer them treatment. The Swiss program for treating heroin addicts is a good model to follow. The users go to center where they can obtain the drugs. These centers offer rehabilitative, medical, and educational services. | | | | |
>
> | Legalization Will Not Increase Use Among Youth
Contrary to popular belief, legalization will not necessarily lead to an increase in use. Portugal, while not legalizing, has decriminalized drug use since 2001. Many at the time feared that drug use would increase, especially among children. This has not happened. The use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and ecstacy among youth has actually fallen. This policy has allowed the Portugese government to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment for drug use. | | | | |
>
> | Conclusion
Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate millions of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 1 - 25 Feb 2010 - Main.JohnAlbanese
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By JohnAlbanese - 25 Feb 2010
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JohnAlbanese
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|