The goofiest argument for the drug war is that not having drug laws implies somehow that the government condones their use. If there isn’t a ‘War On Umbrella Eating’ does that mean they condone eating umbrellas? Does the fact that millions of other things for which there isn’t a ‘War on ___’ — much less laws against — imply the government is in favor them? I think not. And why is providing treatment (which works) seen as supporting drugs when supporting law enforcement handling it (which doesn’t work) is seen as being the way to go?
SF Mayor Gavin Newsom: War On Drugs Is A Failure
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaimed the nation’s war on drugs a total failure and insisted the crime rate would go down if the government spent money on treatment as opposed to jailing people with drug problems.
“If you want to get serious, if you want to reduce crime by 70% in this country overnight, end this war on drugs,” he told reporters at City Hall on Thursday. “You want to get serious, seriously serious about crime and violence end this war on drugs.”
The mayor maintained local jails are overcrowded with people incarcerated for drug offenses, taking up room that could be used to hold more violent criminal offenders. He said violent criminals with lengthy felony records are being turned loose, too often.
San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey, who has run the county jail for 28 years, told CBS 5 that 60 to 75 percent of the 2,000 inmates currently held are there for drug crimes or have underlying substance abuse problems.
He also agreed with Newsom.
“No, the war on drugs is not working. The war on drugs is not working because we are relying on law enforcement instead of on treatment,” Hennessey said.
Mayor Newsom
Lets hope this crack breaks this egg for good. Will still be a federal crime for a long time to come and I would think cause SF to be a drug magnet. Hard to be successful in a larger society if you are the only one exercising common sense and humanity.
It’s all very simple. The only reason for the war on drugs, as it is now called, was to get Nixon elected. Sound far fetched and loonie? Read your history of his campaign. Before Nixon, things like marijuana weren’t quiet as illegal and libel to get you thrown in the slammer for a long time. It caused a legal uproar then and lots of problems that we still haven’t overcome, unless you are one of the owners of a prison, in which case, business is booming and so is your bank account.
I am not for smoking marijuana or anything else, nor am I for dropping acid or sniffing coke nor anything else like that. I don’t do it because it’s pretty clear it’s not good for you. But if someone else wants to put their bodies through that, go ahead. About the only people who should be put in prison are those who knowingly sell the stuff to people who are addicted in the first place, but even then it doesn’t exactly work that well. We’d be better off going back before Nixon in just about every way except for the end of the Vietnam War, even though he thought it was good for the defense industry and wanted to continue it, despite what he later did.
Sounds like an endorsement for Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU
“No, the war on drugs is not working. The war on drugs is not working because we are relying on law enforcement instead of on treatment,” Hennessey said.
Those are very true words. As with any crime, rehabilitation is the key to solving repeat offenders behaviors.
At the same time though, too often drug abusers have to be taken into “the system” against their will before they understand they have a problem. So many habitual drug abusers would never have gotten help otherwise. Well known names such as Betty Ford, David Crosby, Steve Earl, and Robert Downy Jr. come to mind.
Privet
The United States has a bigger percentage of its population in jail than any other country. The two biggest sources of the jail population is drug offenses and illegal immigration.
no one ever lost an election by putting people in jails — it makes great headlines.
but prisons are like highways — as soon as you build one to alleviate overcrowding, it too fills beyond capacity
which reveals that the true culprit — minimum mandatory sentencing for drug charges — forces the prison system to grant parole to violent offenders to alleviate crowding because the mms inmates are ineligible for parole and that is a fact.
coke, crack, heroin and meth are all serious poisons that turn their victims into zombie-slaves and those who peddle them to children deserve hard time, but you have to leave it up to the judge to decide.
frighteningly free market principle have made for higher quality and lower price — and that’s the scariest thing of all.
VOTE RON PAUL!!!! VOTE RON PAUL!!!!!
gmknobl et al:
If you’re interested in the story of how the war on on drugs was started by Nixon I recommend an ebook by the investigative journalist Edward Jay Epstein. By clicking home>archive you can read many other articles and ebooks by him. Fascinating insights, for instance, did you know they never found any evidence of box cutters in any of the plane wreckage at 911? The airline could have been liable for billions in damages for flimsy cockpit doors if it had come out that terrorists had simply forced the doors!
http://tinyurl.com/258nut
At last, something reasonable comes out of San Francisco.
#10, milo,
I might have followed up on that link until you pointed out the guy is a “truthee”.
So how did the crew and passengers on those planes have their throats slit, Milo?
Why should drug traffickers be put in jail? They’re the source for so much of the crime.
MikeN –
When was the last time you heard of a shootout in a turf war between two liquor stores?
ArianeB wrote:
“The two biggest sources of the jail population is drug offenses and illegal immigration.”
In jail for Illegal immigration??? To my knowledge, no one is sentenced to a jail term for simply being in this country illegally. You may be incarcerated temporarily while you are being deported but even that was not typically the case for many years until it became politically attractive recently. The reason there are illegal immigrants in jail is because they committed a crime, not because they are here illegally.
I have never bought the argument that ending the drug war will reduce crime — I’m not sure anyone can claim this with confidence.
For sure, the gangs will shift their criminal activities to other vices just like the Mafia did after Prohibition. Will gangs go away? Not a chance.
But legalization will surely lead to increased drug use.
More drug users means more crime: spousal battery, driving/crashing under the influence, rape, child abuse, street fights, etc.
For example, someone high on meth — legal or not — is more likely to bash your face in with a rock for some imagined offense, for example.
And worse, — if it’s legal — he’s more likely to be your neighbor .
Will that kind of crime be less than than the current violence associated with gang activity?
I doubt it but I don’t believe anyone who claims tto know for sure.
#1 – Hard to be successful in a larger society if you are the only one exercising common sense and humanity.
Tell me about it….
#11 – At last, something reasonable comes out of San Francisco.
Comment by Frank IBC — 10/5/2007 @ 6:21 am
Hmmm… Perhaps I’ve misjudged you just a bit… I’m quite surprised to read you typing that…
#18 – But legalization will surely lead to increased drug use.
I’m interested in hearing you back that claim up using logic, reason, and actual metrics.
How about a war on sherry enemas.We can attribute at least one death to this “huge” social problem.That is one more death than marijuana caused in the last ten years.No.18 ought to check out the Netherlands and see what good treatment instead of war can do for a drug problem.Drug use is no higher there than in the U.S.
A politician talking sense! He won’t last long…
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
These guys are all former cops, lawyers, and federal agents who are against the so called war. I used to work in law enforcement and I can tell you that the war on drugs is a waste of time, resources and human lives.
My argument against the war is simple:
Is there any day, anywhere in the USA where you can’t buy any drug you want? No. Therefore, the war is the worst public policy failure in the history of the United States.
If we can’t stop drugs from getting into our maximum security prisons, how can we stop it on the street? We can’t.
Finally, what business is it of our government to control what we decide to put in our bodies? If you want to kill yourself with cocaine, go ahead. If you commit other crimes to finance your habit or while you are under the influence then you should be prosecuted for those crimes, not for the victimless crime of drug use.
#22
I generally agree with your analysis. However I’d say that crimes commited while under the influence of drugs should have more severe consequences. People are more harmless when they are under the influence of almost all the popular drugs than when they are sober, especially marijuana. There are a few exceptions alcohol being the big one. There are more alcohol related accidents and crimes than all other substances combined.
People have been lead to believe that drug users are dangerous, which is absurd.
Having a war on drugs is like swatting misquitos with your hand to get rid of malaria.
The war on drugs costs the american people several billion dollars a year, and it doesn’t work, it only makes the problem worse.
There is no such thing as victimless crime. Get rid of the drug lords, genuine criminals, with the stroke of a pen by legalizing drugs.
Greg Allen, prohibition passed because alcohol does harm. Prohibition increased the amount of harm done.
Repealing prohibition decreased the harm, but harm is still done.
Repealing the drug prohibition should follow the same pattern.
#16 Frank IBC,
During prohibition.
#23 – pedro
“#22 said: “Finally, what business is it of our government to control what we decide to put in our bodies?”
Since whatyou get into your body may harm others, that’s what.
Even for alcohol, there are legal limits, remember?”
Ah, pedro? Bullshit.
What you put in your body hasn’t one fucking thing to do with why there are limits to BALs.
You are free to drink as much as you like, and get as drunk as suits you – it’s when you GET IN A CAR that a limit applies. Your ACTIONS while under the influence are the concern. It is presumed under law that a BAL over a given percentage will cause you to be unable to drive competently.
Your argument is worthless.
• • • • • • • • • •
#18 – Greg Allen
“But legalization will surely lead to increased drug use.”
Nonsense. Utter rot. And it has been proven so throughout history.
It makes no difference whether a given substance is illegal, for the vast majority of humanity. Those who want to ingest psychoactive substances DO SO – regardless of the law. And conversely, those who don’t want to ingest these substances DON’T DO THEM – and making them legal does not change their reasons for not doing them. It isn’t the law – as I just noted, if someone wants to do them, they go ahead and do it – no one ever says “Gee, I’d snort cocaine if it wasn’t illegal,” because a person who willing is not going to be stopped by the law.
By your Logic-Free Reasoning®™, any legal drug would be immediately universally used upon legalization. What crap.
When Prohibition was in force, just about everyone who wanted to drink drank. And when Repeal took effect, America’s nondrinkers continued to NOT DRINK.
When drugs are legalized, people who don’t believe in taking drugs, and therefore don’t take them, are going to continue to NOT TAKE THEM. So your argument is as worthless as pedro’s.
Frank, I don’t understand your liquor store analogy. Liquor ‘trafficking’ is legal.
As to the argument that legalizing drugs wouldn’t increase drug use, I think that goes against the experience we’ve already had. Prohibition DID lower alcohol use, and it didn’t go back to pre-Prohibition levels until many years after repeal. I think it’s possible drug use would go down, as the image would then be that only losers use drugs, and the rebellion factor goes away.
#25 – M Scott
“Get rid of the drug lords, genuine criminals, with the stroke of a pen by legalizing drugs.”
Good sentiment, correct and supported by logic and facts.
“There is no such thing as victimless crime.”
Huh? Wha??? Where’d THAT come from? Of course there are victimless crimes.
Activities that are completely benign and harmless have had laws passed against them countless times since we’ve had laws. These harmless acts – which are, by definition victimless, since no party is victimized in any way – are defined, by legislative action, as being ‘crimes,’ violations of law.
.: There are ‘victimless crimes.’
Smoking marijuana, by yourself, at home and in private, does no person any harm in any way, shape or form. Nonetheless, it is a violation of law in most places in America and elsewhere. A “crime” + no victim = guess what?
I suggest you may want to reconsider that first statement there… 😉
More nonsense, from MikeN;
The – alleged – decrease in alcohol consumption during Prohibition can be attributed in it’s virtual entirety to, not any drinkers’ conscious decision that “Gee, this is illegal, so I’m not going to do it,” which is obvious nonsense, but rather the necessarily limited availability of alcohol.
Most continued to drink; those who did not, did so because they couldn’t get any – and some quit because all that was available to them was tainted, inferior, adulterated and sometimes poisonous. And that account for the entire decrease in consumption during Prohibition.
#28, Lauren,
“But legalization will surely lead to increased drug use.”
Nonsense. Utter rot. And it has been proven so throughout history.
Hhmmm, Would you care to cite some evidence of that claim?
In Thursday’s news, several Kentucky counties are suing the makers of OxyCotin because of the availability of the drug. Yup, availability has increased usage.
http://tinyurl.com/2esjmc
… no one ever says “Gee, I’d snort cocaine if it wasn’t illegal,” because a person who willing is not going to be stopped by the law.
I beg to differ. Anti drug propaganda in schools has stopped many kids from using tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs. Not all and I don’t know if an accurate assessment could ever be made, but, I have no doubt that many kids don’t touch drugs for that reason. For others it is mostly peer pressure that gets them started.
*
Just to clarify. I have no problem and in fact encourage, legalization of medical marijuana. There is a huge difference between pot and chemical drugs however. They should not be allowed to proliferate. A few years ago I saw the danger and harm meth addiction was causing in our little corner of the world. Maybe that biases me but so be it.
All I can say is, the more I hear about eating an umbrella, the more I want to try it. I wonder if it opens and gets stuck in my throat, if I can sue Dvorak?