Another drug raid on the wrong house...

[ghaverkamp]

I haven't seen Dave's very good question answered yet... was Prohibition a good idea? Did we wimp out by repealing it?

 

By serving the will of the people? No. Of course not.

[smiller]

We don't need sensible drug laws... we just need Eliot Ness!

[Twisties]

Ericfoerster answered in the affirmative, I think.

 

 

I'm for a prohibition on prohibition.

 

 

+ 1

[Bullett]

If they don't know that actually makes this worse because they kicked down a door based on the mere suspicion that it was marijuana.

 

Of course they knew it was marijuana. They delivered it. However, just because they deliver the marijuana doesn't prove that it's the same item after they perform their search.

 

The larger issue seems to be that the police at the scene in this case may well have acted well beyond their authority. From the :

Prince George's County authorities did not have a "no-knock" warrant when they burst into the home of a mayor July 29, shooting and killing his two dogs -- contrary to what police said after the incident.

 

Further, it's asserted that the warrant was never presented to Calvo. (The police say otherwise, but they're the same ones who said they had a no-knock warrant.)

 

This is just another example of the continuing chipping away of protections of the Fourth Amendment.

 

Ummmm, maybe the dogs ate the warrant????

[Twisties]

To go to Russell's point in a little more detail, it can be argued that all freedoms have their costs. Drugs do too.

 

However, after 30 years of a well orchestrated and well funded government sponsored anti-drug propaganda campaign we have lost sight of the benefits of drug use, though they are certainly as real as the benefits of freedom of religion or speech. We also don't see much about the real facts of drug use, to wit, the vast majority of users are responsible. You can prove this to yourself just by looking at the use statistics.

 

If you prefer anecdotes, consider the tragic stories we are forever confronted with of people at the very top of their fields that have been found to have used drugs. I'm thinking of top athletes, supreme court candidates, presidential candidates and CEOs of major corporations. To me the tragedy is not that they ruined their lives with drugs as will be reported in the newspapers, obviously they did not. Rather society ruined their lives due to it's intolerance and myopia. Moreover, at it's own cost, converting a productive individual to an unemployable criminal.

 

So, at this point, it's almost impossible to have a rational and balanced discussion regarding drugs.

 

All societies have used drugs, and they are a normal part of our history as a species. Some people can not use drugs responsibly. With alcohol we treat this as an exception and define it as a disease. Perhaps we need to do the same with other drug problems. We can support/treat these people much better in a situation in which their behavior is not considered criminal. The costs of doing so are much less than the enormous costs of the drug war.

 

My point is that drugs have become illegal in the last 60 or so years, and that there is no rational basis for this. the question is not whether society feels they are of no harm, but whether the costs to society of prohibition are warranted. Unless you just want to come out and admit that you find them morally reprehensible, which, after all, is how they got banned to begin with.

 

So, first tell me what are the benefits of freedom of religion and what are the costs of freedom of religion. Then lets see how we think drugs relate to that.

 

Jan

[tallman]

We don't need sensible drug laws... we just need Eliot Ness!

 

Even harder in Texas where they use fake Dept. Of Transportation trucks.

[smiller]

Even harder in Texas where they use fake Dept. Of Transportation trucks.

Who says it's fake..?

[ericfoerster]

Why have prohibition? We are doing a great job with the ability to handle our liquor:

 

"Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes (NHTSA 2006). "

"During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes,"

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

 

16,885 families in just one year are without a loved one. I guess I'll go ahead and vote to stay with the team.

We will keep our heads in the sand and it will all get better.

 

Many "open drug" countries are now fighting the open use policies that they have had for years.

Research is available to those who want to google it.

It seems property values have dumped in certain areas, crime is up, disease is up, and so on.

If we legalize it we will still pay in one form or fashion. My guess is the same amount fighting it.

 

So, what is the answer?

 

 

[russell_bynum]

Why have prohibition? We are doing a great job with the ability to handle our liquor:

 

"Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes (NHTSA 2006). "

"During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes,"

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

 

16,885 families in just one year are without a loved one. I guess I'll go ahead and vote to stay with the team.

We will keep our heads in the sand and it will all get better.

 

Many "open drug" countries are now fighting the open use policies that they have had for years.

Research is available to those who want to google it.

It seems property values have dumped in certain areas, crime is up, disease is up, and so on.

If we legalize it we will still pay in one form or fashion. My guess is the same amount fighting it.

 

So, what is the answer?

 

 

I'm very conflicted about this. The libertarian in me says if you want to snort drain cleaner until your brain is fried...have at it. As long as you're not screwing me up in the process, who cares? Legalize everything and the deal with then people who are problems.

 

The other part of me sees what a terrible job we're doing with alcohol. And I see that we're moving more and more towards nobody having to take responsibility for themselves....and since I am gainfully employed, that means I wind up picking up the bill. (Yes...I know...I'm already paying for the war on drugs.)

 

I don't know the answer but my gut tells me that legalizing drugs would be a very bad idea.

[ericfoerster]

And I see that we're moving more and more towards nobody having to take responsibility for themselves

 

I see the same thing. It is very scary.

 

I'm not really taking a side here, but mistakes will be made in any system. A few bad things happen and we are ready to trash the whole system that we have now.

 

We hate rules and thats obvious. When the greater good of our society depends on our own behavior we tend to fail almost every time. Legislative action usually follows closely behind. Thats been the pattern for a long time.

[Twisties]

Well Russell as I understand it about two-thirds of motor vehicle deaths are not alcohol-related, and every case in which any driver has any detectable alcohol is treated as alcohol-related, regardless of fault, concentration (amount), or the role, if any, that alcohol played. So I think these statistics have to be taken with some degree of thought.

 

That said, I'm totally with you and Eric that we have to find a way to improve traffic safety. Right now your overall lifetime risk of dying in a MVA is one in a hundred, and that's way too high.

 

But when one looks at freedoms and their costs one needs to be careful. Looking just at gun deaths one would find that there are about 45,000 of those in the US each year (figure includes murders, "accidents", and suicides). A simplistic view would be to ban the nasty things as they certainly do no good - 45,00 families without a loved one. Yet we know that a more complex view as argued by Mike (fugu) suggests that much more thought is needed.

 

With respect to alcohol we've argued on the board before and I've suggested equipping cars with interlocked meters. The cops amongst us counter-argue that these won't stop inveterate alcoholics. I agree, but for the average you and I that may drink socially and have no way to assess our state, they would be invaluable. As for those that would circumvent such a device, and drive anyway, we need to do whatever it takes to make sure they don't do it again.

 

Yes, some drug users will also cause a car wreck. But please balance this against the incredible violence being waged in, and as a result of the prohibition/drug war. The costs of this war are not merely economic. They fuel true mayhem. So it isn't a simple equation.

 

Also understand that as drugs go, alcohol is just about as bad as it can get. If we're going to say that well we're going to allow one drug to be legal, and prohibit all the others due to safety, and we approach this rationally, alcohol would be one of the very last we'd choose for the one legal drug.

 

Jan

[ghaverkamp]

I'm very conflicted about this. The libertarian in me says if you want to snort drain cleaner until your brain is fried...have at it. As long as you're not screwing me up in the process, who cares? Legalize everything and the deal with then people who are problems.

 

The other part of me sees what a terrible job we're doing with alcohol. And I see that we're moving more and more towards nobody having to take responsibility for themselves....and since I am gainfully employed, that means I wind up picking up the bill. (Yes...I know...I'm already paying for the war on drugs.)

 

Why should anyone take responsibility for themselves when we've all ceded our responsibilities to the state?

 

I know these weren't your (lies, damned lies, and...) statistics, but I'm quoting them here, nonetheless:

"Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes (NHTSA 2006). "

"During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes,"

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

 

16,885 families in just one year are without a loved one. I guess I'll go ahead and vote to stay with the team.

We will keep our heads in the sand and it will all get better.

 

39% of traffic deaths "involve" alcohol. 16,885 people doesn't translate into 16885 families; we tend to have fewer people than families in the country.

 

More importantly, any argument based on such statistics are conflating use with other criminal acts. By this standard, we should start eliminating everything that is involved with deaths. Guns, knives, cars, motorcycles, clothes, food, and so on. It's a pretty exhaustive list.

 

I don't know the answer but my gut tells me that legalizing drugs would be a very bad idea.

 

So, you would ban anything that may lead to someone causing someone else harm? That, somehow, resonates in your gut? Remember this the next time you preach about people taking responsibility or about government intruding on something you want.

[ghaverkamp]

I'm not really taking a side here, but mistakes will be made in any system. A few bad things happen and we are ready to trash the whole system that we have now.

 

A few bad things? Inner cities controlled by drug dealers? The demise of inner city education and the concomitant exclusion of entire generations of children raised in those areas from developing into functioning members of society? I guess those are just a few things when viewed comfortably from a distance.

[Twisties]

I'm not really taking a side here, but mistakes will be made in any system. A few bad things happen and we are ready to trash the whole system that we have now.

 

A few bad things? Inner cities controlled by drug dealers? The demise of inner city education and the concomitant exclusion of entire generations of children raised in those areas from developing into functioning members of society? I guess those are just a few things when viewed comfortably from a distance.

 

Greg, it is so nice to have you back!!!!

 

But I think on this point you haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the litany of horrors that have resulted from this system.

 

Jan

[ericfoerster]

A few bad things? Inner cities controlled by drug dealers? The demise of inner city education and the concomitant exclusion of entire generations of children raised in those areas from developing into functioning members of society?

 

OK, we legalize and the damage is fixed?

 

Not in this country. Not a chance!

 

The choice to be a functioning memeber of society is available to all of us right now. The choice of what to do with that freedom is blown when the person decides to make choices that hinder your ability to function with the rules that are in place.

 

I'll agree it's easier for some than others, but the choice is there.

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

OK, we legalize and the damage is fixed?

 

No. We've already beaten it to hell. However, it should be clear that our stupid laws trying to govern individual behavior can't control individual behavior, and law enforcement will never be able to put an end to the problem, unless we simply cede the Constitution to the enforcers.

 

Nothing so utterly damaged will be fixed overnight.

 

The choice to be a functioning memeber of society is available to all of us right now. The choice of what to do with that freedom is blown when the person decides to make choices that hinder your ability to function with the rules that are in place.

 

I'll agree it's easier for some than others, but the choice is there.

 

Sure. Much easier. I didn't have to worry about what colors I wore to school or avoiding drug dealers or whether my school district would be able to fully staff the school with teachers, nor, I imagine, did you. I had two parents at home, and my socioeconomic background didn't make it highly likely that one of my parents would be locked up for a minor drug offense.

 

We, all of us, have allowed parts of our cities to decay to the point where we've made such choices very difficult. I might (and have) cavalierly suggested someone should just move, but the fact of the matter is that people who live with a family in such places generally don't have the resources -- their own, or those of others they might draw upon -- to actually do so.

 

But that's just bleeding heart crap. Those who value individual liberties should be able to recognize that this nonsensical, puritanical bent to keep people away from those things they want serves no purpose but to drive government deeper into our lives. When we ask the government to protect us from ourselves, we've asked the government to choose what we need to be protected from, because we're no longer capable of making those choices.

 

How nice that the we've asked the government to protect individuals from taking drugs. Of course, it's difficult to prevent taking, so the focus turns to dealing, which we'll happily punish with more fervor than crimes that actually harm people who didn't make a choice to participate. That is indeed a system to be proud of.

 

Unfortunately, the money that comes from the illicit trade of drugs is great, and those who control the trade act to protect their interests, often in violent ways. (Which should be no surprise for anyone who knows anything about the rise of the mafia during Prohibition.) And since law enforcement can't possibly keep up, they simply cede those areas to the criminals. Those living in those areas can either choose to get out and actually get out, choose to get out but fail to get out, or choose to endure it.

 

Which simply brings things back full circle. We can't complain about lack of individual responsibility when we've decided that the government should be the arbiter of that responsibility. It's myopic to blame those caught in a situation that we created by asking the government to protect us from ourselves. And the solution -- which won't be immediate -- will require us to revisit what sort of involvement we want the government to play in the daily lives of its citizens.

 

I think that involvement should be minimal, but it's clear there are only a handful of others who also feel that way, despite their arguments when they feel that a freedom they value is being threatened.

[ericfoerster]

unless we simply cede the Constitution to the enforcers.

 

Why cede the Constitution at all? Are we, law enforcement, only carrying out what is laid out in it, albeit not always in correct fashion?

 

Does the Constitution not allow us to protect against invasion and violence?

 

Sure. Much easier. I didn't have to worry about what colors I wore to school or avoiding drug dealers or whether my school district would be able to fully staff the school with teachers, nor, I imagine, did you. I had two parents at home, and my socioeconomic background didn't make it highly likely that one of my parents would be locked up for a minor drug offense.

 

 

I went to Edcouch Elsa High School in South Texas for a year. One only need to visit the Rio Grande Valley and understand what that meant at the time.

I was one of very few people in my school to actually pay for lunch and not carry a pound or two of weed in the trunk of my car. I also made a 4.0 while I was there and was paid to tutor algebra.

It was my choice.

 

would be locked up for a minor drug offense

 

 

The fact is a majority of drug convictions do not result in jail time. When you repeat the behavior you are then rewarded with a longer term in the pen.

 

It's myopic to blame those caught in a situation that we created by asking the government to protect us from ourselves.

 

"I" did not assist in making this situation at all. It's our apathetic attitude in raising our kids and taking responsibilty for our own actions that have created the "situation."

 

As you well know, law enforcement officers do not usually make laws. We tend to enforce what the legislators enact. Yes, we do lobby from time to time, as all special interest groups do.