Patterico's Pontifications

4/2/2007

Drug Treatment and Drug Decriminalization: Neither Is the Easy Cure-All You Thought It Was

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:01 am



The L.A. Times reports:

The most comprehensive assessment of California’s landmark effort to treat drug users rather than jail them has found that nearly half of offenders sentenced under the program fail to complete rehab and more than a quarter never show up for treatment.

The high failure rates have prompted a growing number of critics to call for jail sanctions for defendants they say take advantage of the program’s lack of penalties.

Maybe it comes as a surprise to the editors of the L.A. Times that you can’t force drug offenders to complete drug programs without a credible threat of incarceration. But it doesn’t surprise me. That’s the reason I voted against Proposition 36 in 2000.

The idea behind Proposition 36 is that you get three chances to mess up before you can be sent to jail for even one day. Like many Deputy District Attorneys in busy courthouses, I have filled in temporarily in Proposition 36 courts from time to time, and I see how this theory works in practice. The judge takes a plea from a defendant on a felony drug possession case, and tells him that he will have three chances to violate his Proposition 36 probation before he can be incarcerated. Watching judges take pleas like this is very much like being a bystander watching a parent lecture his child in the following manner:

I saw you hit Johnny. You had better not do that again! If you do . . . well, I won’t do anything the first time. If you do it a second time . . . well, I still won’t do anything. But if you do it a third time, then mister, you will be in trouble!

Picture a child receiving such a lecture, and you can easily visualize the results of implementing such a program in the criminal justice system:

High failure rates are typical among drug treatment programs, but many judges and law enforcement officials say too few defendants appear to take Proposition 36 seriously.

Indeed, some offenders admit they view the program as a “free pass.”

“Every time I’d get arrested … [I knew] I’ve got three more chances coming to jail,” Alexander Santillan said in a November interview inside Los Angeles County Jail.

. . . .

Courts have little choice but to release them unless they have exhausted their three chances. A Times analysis of Los Angeles County jail data found that drug possession bookings soared 150% between 2000, the year before Proposition 36 began, and 2005.

What a surprise!

Of course, I realize that the libertarians in the crowd think that everything would be hunky-dory if we just decriminalized drug possession. Tell that to The Independent, a liberal British newspaper that recently reversed its stance in favor of drug legalization, saying:

Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk, the highly potent cannabis strain that is 25 times stronger than resin sold a decade ago.

More than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction – and almost half of those affected were under 18. With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can be as damaging as cocaine and heroin, leading to mental health problems and psychosis for thousands of teenagers, The Independent on Sunday has today reversed its landmark campaign for cannabis use to be decriminalised.

A decade after this newspaper’s stance culminated in a 16,000-strong pro-cannabis march to London’s Hyde Park – and was credited with forcing the Government to downgrade the legal status of cannabis to class C – an IoS editorial states that there is growing proof that skunk causes mental illness and psychosis.

The decision comes as statistics from the NHS National Treatment Agency show that the number of young people in treatment almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006, and that 13,000 adults also needed treatment.

(Via See Dubya.)

There is much room for debate regarding issues such as drug legalization, or substituting treatment for incarceration. Reasonable people on both sides of the issue make good arguments. What annoys me is the smug attitude of some people who claim that it’s not even a close question. The two articles linked above ought to wipe the self-satisfied look off of your faces.

P.S. I said ought to. I harbor no illusions that it actually will.

Let the nasty attacks on the prosecutor begin!

93 Responses to “Drug Treatment and Drug Decriminalization: Neither Is the Easy Cure-All You Thought It Was”

  1. “Tell that to The Independent…”

    I did. How many of those young potheads went to rehab because they had an addiction? How many went because their parents made them? My guess is “0”, and “all of them”. Saying you are addicted to marijuana is like saying you are addicted to skiing. It’s just silly.

    Kevin (e89cee)

  2. I’ve never been a fan of forced rehab — people are generally unlikely to change their lives because someone else wants them to, and addicts are especially unresponsive to suggestion.

    I wonder if that 25% who complete rehab is mostly casual users who are able to “quit” mainly because they’re not addicted, and are in most other respects law-abiding. Not everyone who uses drugs is an addict.

    Given the natural delays in the system, I’d much rather have a system where the judge says that the case is continued for, say, 3 months and that it would be an exceptionally good thing to show up with 10 people who will swear you are 60 days clean at that time. Have rehab available, or they can go to NA, CA or AA. Or whatever floats their boat. But if they fail the drug test in 3 months, they’re going to jail, pure and simple.

    I’m always more impressed by what people HAVE done, given a chance, that what they’re fixing to do real soon now.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  3. Kevin–

    It is quite possible to become addicted to marijuana, just like it’s possible to become addicted to alcohol. And it’s also possible to never have that happen, even with heavy use.

    This organization wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t possible.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  4. The world’s simplest test for drug addiction:

    Tell the suspected addict that they are going to be drug tested a week from Thursday at noon. If they fail (or don’t show up), they are an addict. If they pass, they aren’t. An addict is incapable of stopping long enough to pass, even when they know when and where. Long odds.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  5. Kevin Murphy –

    The “other” Kevin can correct me if I’m wrong, but the concept of cannabis addiction as compared to skiing “addiction” is pretty valid, as both are solely psychological addictions (no matter what hand-waving yet another “Anonymous” group wants to do).

    Maybe skiing is physically addictive – I’ve heard of withdrawal symptoms amounting to a general feeling of warmth and a sharp decrease in the feeling of falling…

    Rick Wilcox (bb4b76)

  6. The pro-recreational drug crowd lost me years ago. They know their habit supports revolution, murder, extortion, corruption and kidnapping, but they don’t stop. If the marijuana crowd wants to be taken seriously, stop spending money on illegal drugs for five years and put the drug lords out of business. Then everyone will see that they can contol their habit.
    A far as the new strain of marijuana goes, that doesnt suprize me, the drug cartels are worse than the tobacco industry when it comes to a lack of concern for the health of their customers, or the the police officers, priests and politicians that stand in their way.

    tyree (837a75)

  7. Kevin Murphy,
    The validity of your test would depend upon the carrots and sticks attached to passing or failing the test:

    If testing positive has a significant negative effect upon one’s freedom, the test will prove fairly accurate, by reasonable definitions, at discovering who is an “addict.”

    If testing positive means you are an “addict” who should get methadone, a social worker, public assistance and a get-out-of-jail-free card for possession, then of course many more people (partyers and the lazy as well as the truly addicted) will test positive.

    The above two examples would fit various places and times within the United States.

    If, on the other hand, testing positive results in a severe negative, such as a public beheading (imagine Saudi Arabia), then even almost all addicts will be able to clean up for the 3 days prior to the test necessary to pass (2 or 3 days for heroin and cocaine; longer for marijuana).

    DWPittelli (87ad39)

  8. Tyree,
    The “revolution, murder, extortion, corruption and kidnapping” funded by illegal drug use are due to prohibition, and are one argument in favor of legalization, especially given Afghanistan as a major heroin source.

    As it happens, US marijuana is mostly grown in the US, Canada, and Mexico, and has little effect on the funding of such serious enemies of the United States. (Long-distance smugglers carry heroin and cocaine because they are worth on the order of 10 to 100 times more for a given weight than marijuana.)

    Patterico,
    Yes, marijuana has harmful effects. Few dispute that as a fact; people dispute its relevance. Alcohol also ruins lives and makes people addicted and crazy (more quickly and profoundly than does marijuana, as I’ve witnessed in prep school and college, but not so quickly or profoundly as does cocaine). As with alcohol, the relevant question for lawmakers is whether, on a net basis, prohibition is more harmful than legalization.

    DWPittelli (87ad39)

  9. Put me down for a pound of that skunk….

    As a 12 Stepper from way back, I can only confirm that desire to quit is paramount. It is my experience that a person has to hit bottom, and I mean a bottom so low you have to look up to see the whale shit, before one is willing to pay the awful price quitting demands.

    Pot addiction: I thought it was total crap dreamed up by drug counselors looking for grants, until I visited a rehab clinic. It was there that I first learned of this new stuff that is so potent. The drug rehab people may actually be telling the truth. May be…..I say MAY because we are living in an age where nobody wants to be accountable for their actions—“I can’t help it, I’m hopelessly addicted,” being the current excuse.

    Howard Veit (4ba8d4)

  10. It is the fact of prohibition that creates drug cartels, smuggling, distribution gangs and corruption. Were drugs legally available the cartels would be no more powerful than the corn growers association or some such.

    There aren’t alcohol production and smuggling gangs are there? Of course not; alcohol is legal, taxed and sold openly to adults.

    I’d personally like to see other recreational drugs handled exactly the same way. Legalize, tax the crap out of them, sell them in liquor stores and designate the money for treatment.

    The problem is our attempt to criminalize behavior that people are determined to engage in. You’d think we’d have learned by now that doesn’t work.

    As to the 3 strikes program you’re talking about P, I have no idea why anyone thought that would work – sounds to me like it was designed to fail.

    Dwilkers (4f4ebf)

  11. Kevin Murphy:

    Your comments on addiction and treatment issues are simplistic.

    For example, what does this prove?

    If compulsive activity leading to negative consequences is always an addiction, then you’ve diluted “addiction” of its core meaning and placed everything under the rubric of medicine. Which, of course, is the thoeretical basis for treatment as opposed to punishment, i.e. lack of intent/agency.

    I agree with P that there is a problem with all hand-holding, no stick. Even if there will be voluntary participation at some point, the initial motivation for showing up has to be something with an immediate coercive element.

    Also, it bugs me when people say, “if only we did __ the problem would be solved tomorrow!”. The fact is that you could impose the death penalty and addictive people would find something else, and a few would just take the risk. you’d have to ban everything. So this is about management, which in turn entails a good balance of approaches and the political understanding that various forms of drug use have always been cyclical and the goal is to maximize the usefulness of those who will take on their own problems – thus providing a return on any investment the government makes in their treatment.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  12. Yeah just like all this rediclous rehabilitation was suppost to work and giving in to crinimals was suppost to work and it did,nt liberals are always comming up with stupid ideas

    krazy kagu (4ca035)

  13. Howard:

    After doing a survey of the crime and treatment literature in law school, I came to the pet theory (along with my advising prof) that, chemistry notwithstanding, Speed and Power were the two main factors predictive of addictiveness of substances (and possibly behaviors) generally.

    This was not to discount the chemistry, but whether it’s THC, cocaine, or opiates, the same chemical has a vastly different impact on resulting behavior, depending on the speed and power with which it takes its specific neurochemical effect. Addictiveness seems tied to the aftereffects, which mirror the speed and power of the initial effects.

    Based in part on this, I think that patterns of use, social dynamics of use (an issue tied to legalization), and (maybe above all) method of delivery/ingestion are as or more important than the chemical identity of the drug. I know there are other factors, but I would submit these as some underrespresented ones.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  14. I have mixed feelings about legalization. One drug that cannot be legalized is cocaine. It makes people hyperactive and paranoid, a bad combination. Heroin is probably safe for legalization and addicts can probably lead useful, fully functional lives while addicted to heroin. The opiod receptors, once saturated, don’t interfere much with functioning in a true addict. Marijuana, in the words of Bill Bennett when he was the drug czar, makes people stupid. In view of the functioning of the public school system, rap music and MTV, it seems to have a good amount of competition. It seems to be working as witnessed by party affiliation numbers recently published.

    As far as curing addiction, coerction is probably necessary unless the addict has really hit bottom. Of course, hitting bottom often results in coertion from the legal system. A family member was successfully treated for alcohol addiction in this fashion and I don’t think anything would have worked without the threat of prison. Alcoholism has a genetic component but successful medical treatment is still a ways in the future.

    Morphine addiction may be treatable soon with blockers of the opiod receptors. The side effects of that may be the problem but the blockers are coming.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  15. Drug abuse would be an insignificant societal problem without the enablers who support the druggie, sheltering him, feeding him, clothing him and even financing his habit. The biggest enabler of all being the welfare state.

    nk (37b8ef)

  16. The biggest enabler of all being the welfare state.

    Really? There’s no addicts in China, India, Vietnam, etc.?

    biwah (2dcf66)

  17. Err, I don’t know about India, I imagine that the family structure is still the primary safety net there, but China and Vietnam have what kind of government/economy? And I was talking about our societal problem but thanks for the opening. In any society where if you don’t work you don’t eat the number of addicts will be smaller than the number of one-legged can-can dancers.

    nk (37b8ef)

  18. What upsets me most about the nanny-state “at the taxpayers’ expense philanthropists” is that they feel perfectly fine forcing me to wear a motorcycle helmet, or a seat belt and to pay an extra five thousand dollars for airbags and collapsible panels in my car because, according to them, I will be a burden to society should I be injured. But they have no problem taking 40% or more of my working life to support worthless drones and parasites.

    nk (37b8ef)

  19. In any society where if you don’t work you don’t eat the number of addicts will be smaller than the number of one-legged can-can dancers.

    That’s a bold statement and a tidy bit of thinking nk, but it’s hard to discern what it actually means, and in any case it’s very different from your previous assertion about the welfare state. Very broadly, drug abuse rates are very high in Central Asia, Eastern Africa, South America, and the Carribean. They are also relatively high in the U.S. and Western Europe for cocaine and cannabis. But drug abuse is demontrably a much bigger problem than can be laid at the feet of the “welfare state”.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  20. nk #18 – I empathize with that, but to try to apply your objections to the way the government uses our money to the prevalence of drug abuse is a wishful bit of pigeonholing.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  21. And finally, a comment on point. Patterico wrote:

    “Of course, I realize that the libertarians in the crowd think that everything would be hunky-dory if we just decriminalized drug possession.”

    It would not be hunky-dory but more acceptable if 1) we just let drug addicts rot in the gutter and 2) treated drug addiction not as an excuse for crimes but as an aggravating factor or enhancement in sentencing. Want to take drugs? Fine. Support yourself and don’t hurt anyone else while doing it.

    nk (37b8ef)

  22. Biwah,

    Do we disagree about “enabler” or “welfare state”? Because among rich suburban kids, their parents are the enablers. But among ghetto kids, the welfare state is the enabler. And ghetto kids are overwhelmingly the ones whose lives are destroyed by drugs — whether because they become addicted, go to prison for dealing or get gunned down in a drive-by shooting.

    nk (37b8ef)

  23. I’d be A-OK with drug legalization, on one condition:

    Don’t force taxpayers to foot the bill for treatment of the medical consequences of the addicts’ habits, and I’m there. Until then, sod off.

    I believe consenting adults should be able to smoke, drink, do drugs… whatever floats their boat. HOWEVER, they must be compelled, at some point, to be responsible for the consequences (legal, medical, whatever) of their chemical dependency. None of those consequences obligate me (or any other taxpayer) to pick up the check.

    If we could tax these things, and put the tax into a fund to help pay for the rehab and medical expenses for the users, we could theoretically make the whole thing self-financing. Unfortunately, I have zero confidence that any of our legislators could keep their grubby paws out of the till.

    TheNewGuy (114368)

  24. “Cannabis addiction?”

    Please.

    Pot. Is. Not. Addictive. At least not in any medically meaningful way. If you define down addiction with enough new-age psychobabble, then yes, perhaps. In the same way that video games, sports, and shopping are “addictions”.

    CTD (7054d2)

  25. nk:

    I’m beyond by store of factual knowledge here, but I would guess that the welfare state is relatively neutral in its influence on the bottom line of drug abuse. To the extent that drug abusers smoke or inject their welfare checks, they supplement those funds with drug selling or other crime. Crime is the enabler, but you can’t legislate crime out of existence.

    And I would add that prohibition begets greater levels of organized crime.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  26. Rick Wilcox–

    You seem to be laboring under a 1950’s definition of addiction, which is solely based on physical withdrawal. If you really want to claim that a substance has to produce severe physical withdrawal to be considered addictive, then crack isn’t addictive. Which is absurd.

    Reminds me of the guy who says that he’s smoked pot every day for 25 years and he’s still not addicted.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  27. On the pot-specific issue, I think pot should be legalized because it has no toxicity and is not chemically addictive. That sets it apart from other drugs. Additionally, I think it is an anti-gateway in many instances, a stopgap for people who have addictions to harder drugs.

    I would not advocate the legalization of other drugs, rather a sensible treatment and monitoring option for users.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  28. Kevin Murphy – what about the guy who smokes every day for ten years, gets a job and a family, and stops without any problems?

    Is that true of many drinkers or cocaine users?

    biwah (2dcf66)

  29. If, on the other hand, testing positive results in a severe negative, such as a public beheading (imagine Saudi Arabia), then even almost all addicts will be able to clean up for the 3 days prior to the test necessary to pass (2 or 3 days for heroin and cocaine; longer for marijuana).

    I’ll take that bet. Give me 2-1?

    In fact most addicts will tell themselves that they can take “just one more hit” all the way up to too-late. Then, upon realizing it’s too late, they’ll say “WTF” and continue.

    If you talk to people who do drug hotlines, they’ll tell you that one of the most common questions they get is “How long before a test do I have to stop?” And it’s not like the question is being asked well in advance….

    One modern definition of addiction is “persistance in behavior in the face of known, adverse and immediate results.”

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  30. “(E) If a defendant on probation…..violates that probation a second time either by committing a nonviolent drug possession offense, or a misdemeanor for simple possession or use of drugs…..(Similar language omitted)…..and the state moves for a second time to revoke probation……….The trial court shall revoke probation if the alleged violation is proved and the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence either that the defendant poses a danger to the safety of others or that the defendant is unamenable to drug treatment.” Emphasis added.

    Calfiornia Penal Code Section 1210.1(f)(3)(E)

    Not too many of these kinds of prosecutions showing up on court calendars. Sooooo, if that can be described as prosecutorial criticism, let fly the slings and arrows.

    Ms. Judged (becd1d)

  31. So, Kevin Murphy, a THC urine test “looks back” maybe 30 days. If someone stays clean in advance of a known test, but just says “WTF” on one (particularly stressful) day 10 days before the test, and tokes up, but it’s just that one time, that person is an addict?

    That’s what I meant by “diluting” ‘addiction’s core meaning (#11).

    biwah (2dcf66)

  32. biwah–

    Actually, it is with respect to booze. Lots of people, men especially, drink rather heavily in their 20’s and then stop when they get married or the baby comes. (See Bush, George W)

    And some don’t, or can’t.

    Cocaine? Hard to say, as 10 years of crack use will probably leave you 5 years dead for one reason or another. Certainly, you’d be LONG past the point where bad things had begun to happen. But sure, they are people who’ve snorted powder cocaine for several years in their youth who give it up, given a good reason. And others who, given the same good reason, find they cannot.

    And there’s no good way to predict, going in.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  33. biwah–

    If he is toking up knowing that, yes. What would you call it? He’s using a drug as a primary coping skill, in a situation a sane person would think “Huh! Probably shouldn’t, I’ll screw the test.”

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  34. So please bring this around to your point about what exactly addiction “is”.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  35. 34 was a response to 32. Did your drinker-through-his-20’s ever knowingly incure adverse effects during that time (making him an addict per your def.)? But then, when he stops, he’s not an addict anymore, right? So what gives? Is addiction voluntary, and then how can it really be addiction?

    And re #33: Responding to stress in a particular instance with a drug = addiction? Wow, I need a drink!…er, I mean, I need a brisk walk on the treadmill!

    biwah (2dcf66)

  36. As another old 12 stepper I too see horrible problems either way. Sadly, the real problem is evolutionary. All our efforts to help or control these addictions or quasi-addictions are efforts to repeal evolutionary rules. People with a genetic predisposition towards this stuff, and I include myself, will be less likely to live, to prosper and to breed.

    We can delay the results, no more. It’s like the law of gravity – the rock eventually falls, the mountain gets worn down. The genes that let a person get addicted to the point where they no longer function will eventually do just that.

    We can let it happen fast or try to drag it out. Fast is better. Make the drugs free. Give them away.

    No, I am not heartless, I just see generations of suffering being worse than solving the problem now with one short burst of pain. Perhaps it’s already happening – we do have a surprisingly low birth rate.

    Isn’t there some evidence that northwest Europeans are genetically more adapted to alcohol because distilled spirits were freely available in the 17 hundreds? See the Wikipedia entry on ‘Gin’ and its effect on the population of London.

    BlacquesJacquesShellacques (a1a544)

  37. The real problem with all of this is that Prop 36 and similar laws are based on false assumptions.

    Detox does not do much to get an addict sober. Many addicts leave the detox and are high before they get home — it’s the way to bet.

    Rehabs attempt to add a psychological or group therapy element to detox, but unless there is continuing and voluntary participation in a group like AA or NA, and significant personal change, relapse is almost guaranteed.

    Recovery is a process, not an event, and requires the full and ongoing effort of the individual, who has to want to stay sober.

    And Prop 36 is based on the idea that someone can be made sober. And so it fails.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  38. biwah–

    BTW, you confuse me with a supporter of government-directed rehabs and the “recovery industry.” Not. Except for some things that require a medical detox, don’t see the need for much past the 12 Step groups. Groups which are free for all and have never taken dime one from the government (although the government keeps trying to insinuate itself).

    That doesn’t mean I’m not going to try to educate folks on what addiction is, because misconceptions apparently abound. Which is why we have laws like Prop 36.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  39. And re #33: Responding to stress in a particular instance with a drug = addiction? Wow, I need a drink!…er, I mean, I need a brisk walk on the treadmill!

    OK, now you’re talking past me, and we’re done.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  40. “Were drugs legally available the cartels would be no more powerful than the corn growers association or some such.”

    -Dwilkers (#10)

    Or the tobacco lobby. Or some such.

    Aforementioned irony notwithstanding, I agree that the legalization and regulation of drugs would be a step forward in reducing their adverse affects. For one thing, eliminating the monopoly of cartels would lower the cost of drugs, and would lessen the odds that an individual would need to go to criminal lengths to slake their chemical thirst.

    Personally, I find drug use abhorrent. Politically, I think putting someone in jail for drug use causes more problems than it solves.

    “Cocaine? Hard to say…”

    -Kevin Murphy

    See “Bush, George W” again.

    Leviticus (ed6d31)

  41. Kevin Murphy,

    Good. Quit while you’re behind (and before you’ve addressed any of my specific questions to you).

    I didn’t “take” you for anyone, just had some questions regarding your ideologically-based and contradictory assumptions, that’s all.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  42. Not too many of these kinds of prosecutions showing up on court calendars. Sooooo, if that can be described as prosecutorial criticism, let fly the slings and arrows.

    Ms. Judged,

    In most cases, the prosecution will have no evidence that the defendant is unamenable to drug treatment other than the fact that he has now violated his Prop. 36 probation twice.

    Given the structure of the law, if I were a judge, I would require something more. Since the law generally gives defendants three chances, you can’t use the provision you cite to whittle it down to two, without something more.

    So we’re back to the original problem: the structure of the law. Any law that routinely gives defendants three chances to screw up is going to result in defendants screwing up multiple times. That’s not just common sense; the stats now bear it out.

    Patterico (04465c)

  43. Critical to the use of the provision cited by Ms. Judged: is a dirty test evidence that the defendant “has committed a serious violation of rules at the drug treatment program”?

    Patterico (04465c)

  44. The idea that pot is addictive is simply silly. You can smoke pot every day for ten years, loose your connection suddenly and have zero access to pot, and you will suffer absolutely no ill effects whatsoever (unless you call losing 10 pounds an ill effect). Not so of heroin or alcohol, as I understand….

    TheManTheMyth (28d602)

  45. Patterico: I would say that dirty tests fall short of “serious violations”, especially since that same paragraph mentions “repeatedly committed violations”, implicitly creating a non-serious category of violation, into which dirty tests would seem to fall.

    Also, the treatment centers would probably weigh in heavily against attaching specific consequences to relaps per se, since relapses (a) are expected, and (b) need to be admitted by the individual for treatment to be effective.

    Maybe relapsing and lying about it to the treatment provider. Even then it would probably have to be repeated, but then you could argue that the dishonesty (combined with drug use) “inhibit[s] the defendant’s ability to function in the program” – since you can probably find something in the program materials that emphasizes disclosure/honesty as fundamental to recovery.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  46. Sorry; I think I’m going to have to keep my smugness — not based on the strawman that drug decriminalization would solve the problems of drug addiction, but on the pretty clear example of prohibition that the main effect of substance prohibition is to create a market niche for criminals, and spend less-than-unlimited law enforcement resources (cops, prosecutors, prison space) on a lost battle.

    Are we better off when a junkie, rather than being able to support his or her habit on minimum wage, will have to find a way to get hundreds or thousands of dollars every week to feed it? Is it necessary to put up a strawman of decriminalization as a cure-all in order to avoid confronting the incredible, expensive failure that the War on Some Drugs has been?

    No, it’s not even a close question. Perhaps after more tens upon tens of billions of dollars are flushed down the War on Some Drugs rathole you’ll come around.

    I hope so.

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  47. something in the program materials

    …or in a treatment contract” signed of some kind?

    biwah (2dcf66)

  48. whoops, mis-cut&pasted…

    …or in a signed “treatment contract” of some kind?

    biwah (2dcf66)

  49. Joel,

    Perhaps after more tens upon tens of billions of dollars are flushed down the War on Some Drugs rathole you’ll come around.

    I’m already there, bud. I’ll take you up on that proposition today… do all the cheap/legal drugs you want… just as soon as you can ensure that us non-drug-using taxpayers won’t be forced to pay for it.

    Until then (and as long as I and every other tax-paying citizen are footing the bill), I’m going to have to say “not in my house.”

    What could be fairer than that?

    TheNewGuy (114368)

  50. You can’t save anyone who’s determined to kill himself. Most of the time you can’t even make him comfortable. Some people are just self-destrictive, the best you can do is minimize the damage they cause to others. Some people will ask for help, others can force to get help. The rest will resist, get obstinant, and kill themselves just to spite you.

    I say we legalize recreational pharmacuticals in order to take production and distribution out of the hands of criminals. Let’s take crack off the street corner, and put it behind store counters where it belongs. It would lower prices, improve qualities, and more quickly kill off those with a tendency to addictive behavior.

    Alan Kellogg (4a22db)

  51. I became “addicted” to nicotine when I was the program director of a college radio station in the 1960’s. I was the only non-smoker in a crowded place with sixty others all of whom were usually smoking. My roommate, tired of my grumping, one evening told me that I sounded like I was having a nicotine fit, and handed me a lit cigarette. Relief. I became a smoker, and the headaches were gone.

    I managed to quit about two decades later. It was not easy, and I was seriously trying to quit for the latter decade. Nicotine gum finally got me off the psychological addiction to smoking, and sugar-free gum finally got me off the addiction to nicotine. Took another two years to get rid of the sugar-free gum habit.

    All of that was twenty years ago or so, and I still get the occasional cigarette craving.

    I don’t think that making cigarettes illegal would have changed much of that story; it just would have made it more difficult for me to quit.

    If you want to help addicts quit, you have to lead them to wanting to quit. They are not addicted because they want to be addicted; the drug abuse (we’ll ignore the occasional user who can quit on demand) is filling some need, mental, physical, or both, in their life. They have to find some other way to fill that need, or remove it. Passing laws, threatening, or throwing them in jail does neither.

    Instead of having Joe or Jill show up after ninty days for a drug test, have them show up every day for ninty days, giving them the results every day. If they miss a day, or a week, that’s fine, just extend the ninty days a day or a week. After four months (say) you can look at the record and say that Jill appears to have been high twice in the ninty tests, while Joe was not high on six of his and he took six months to do them. Jill may have a problem, but Joe definately does. How to “treat” them can then be more properly adjusted. It may be appropriate to throw Joe in the clink or hospital for a month to dry out from whatever his drug is, while Jill’s problem is more subtle.

    I didn’t say that this was a cheap way to deal with the problem.

    htom (412a17)

  52. Speaking as yet another 12-stepper (a friend of Bill, no less), and a budding libertarian, I have to say that I don’t like the idea of legalized drugs (coke, meth, whatever). If it is legalized, the REALLY harsh penalties MUST be put in place to punish those who get toked up and commit a crime. Smoke crack and then plow your car into a minivan? Life in prison, no parole. Shoot a guy while on meth? Death penalty.

    There needs to be set, distict, obvious consequences or else the whole system is going to go to hell.

    And AS a 12-stepper, you can’t get clean and stay clean uless you go to treatment/meetings and WANT it. You have to hit whatever your bottom is before you’re willing to listen. Court-ordered treatment/meetings are utterly pointless.

    Scott Jacobs (e3904e)

  53. Deal, TheNewGuy — as long as, of course, you use your magic wand to make sure taxpayers are kept completely protected from the costs of people doing drugs that are now legal. As long as you want me to use a magic wand, you’ve gotta use one, too.

    Until then, I guess we can continue to flush tax dollars down the War On Some Drugs rathole. That’s worked so well, after all, right?

    If making drugs that do harm unlawful worked, Prohibition would have been a roaring success, rather than such a preposterous failure.

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  54. If Scott Jacobs is right (and he speaks from experience), it makes no sense to punish addicted users; nor does it (from a rational standpoint) make sense to punish non-addicted users (who by definition aren’t causing significant harm even to themselves).

    biwah (2dcf66)

  55. biwah–

    I answered each of your questions, directly, and you forgot each of your questions in responding to my answers. Why should I talk more?

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  56. By the way, the 12 step programs, as such, have no position in the legal/illegal war. Nearly all of AA’s founders stayed dead drunk during alcohol prohibition, drinking in illegal booze houses, and then got sober after booze was legal again. To them, the legality of it was immaterial.

    There is a firm written tradition against AA getting involved in this kind of debate, and most of the 12 Step offshoots follow this.

    Individuals, of course, have their own opinions.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  57. Legalization of drugs is a dilemma similar to that of Prohibition in the 1920s. Legalization of alcohol again reduced the incentives for crime but did not end alcoholism and probably resulted in an increase. Drug legalization would probably have a similar effect. Britain has cut back on some of the legalization provisions due to abuse. The Pot enthusiasts would have you believe that having your brain dipped in THC is less harmful than in alcohol. Pot is a gateway drug. Every study shows that. There is a reason why every diet starts with stopping alcohol. Both pot and alcohol reduce inhibition and will power.

    We can debate the legal pros and cons of drug legalization but let’s not delude ourselves that this stuff is all benign.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  58. Right. The reason AA stays out of politics entirely is that politics and recovery don’t mix. Nuff said.

    Also I hesitate to explain why you should talk more (I’m not so sure you should), but would refer you to the comments above. I tend to get monosyllabic late in the day, but in a nutshell I didn’t think anything you suggested above made sense and to top it off your many ideas about addiction seemed rather smug, conclusory, and ill-defined.

    I am personally mized on AA. Was forced into it because of some missspent-youth issues, and like the atmosphere, but clearly it’s not for everyone, and its centerpiece philosophy is rather dogmatic and self-congratulatory – none of which offends me per se, and when it works it sure works.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  59. mized? is that a word? Maybe I meant…

    less than fanatically supportive of…?

    biwah (2dcf66)

  60. Pot is a gateway drug. Every study shows that.

    Really? I am highly skeptical. Repetition does not evidence make. Proof?

    biwah (2dcf66)

  61. The argument being made is circular.

    Pot is a gateway drug. Meaning it will lead to the horrors of (pick one). The horrors of the other drugs are at least partially defined by the illegality though, so the problem becomes unsolvable.

    What’s needed is different thinking. No matter what the vices of drug use obviously the war on drugs isn’t working. It fills our prisons with non-violent offenders, cells needed for offenders that rape, maim and murder. It creates enormous crime organizations in our neghbor’s countries for wehich they are ill equipped to deal. It moves enormous amounts of money underground (and hence untaxed) in our economy. It creates a culture amongst our young people of ignoring the law – making hypocrites of us all.

    Legal drugs wouldn’t solve everything. But it would make us honest, it would demonstrate that we don’t make laws we don’t mean. It would make our neighbor’s country’s able to legally produce products that are going to be produced anyway without gangland warfare and terrorists running their countries. With our drug problems out of the shadows we could treat the people afflicted.

    And in this country, when we hit a thorny issue like this, we should always come down on the side of personal freedom. To me, the question I get stuck on is this; do I want a guy that uses weed or downers – or a guy like Rush Limbaugh for example – taking up a jail cell and a violent offender released due to overcrowding?

    It doesn’t make sense. It has never made sense. There’s nothing “good” about legal drugs, except they aren’t as “bad” as the problems of making them illegal.

    And FWIW, I don’t use drugs, although I did smoke weed when I was a kid. Somehow I managed to miss the gateway to heroin/opium/whatever though.

    Dwilkers (4f4ebf)

  62. Patterico:

    The evidence that a defendant is not amenable to further treatment is a finding and/or conclusion that would most likely be held by the professionals in the treatment programs themselves. Recall that the prosecution must prove the violation (easily done in most cases) and the defendant is either a danger (perhaps not so easily done, but not necessarily requiring expert testimony) to the public or not amenable to further treatment. Prosecutors get a break on the standard as well. Clear and convincing.

    I don’t know why more of these cases are not brought. But I would suspect that the evidence is there in a significant number of cases if one were to dig for it.

    Ms. Judged (becd1d)

  63. The article that was cited in The Independent is just the same ridiculous nonsense that gets bandied about every couple of years. Oh, no, the new drugs are so much more powerful than they used to be! Plus, they make you insane!

    As far as the reefer madness schizophrenia claim goes, check this out. Just as unsupported by the data as it always was.

    Another Brit says that the marijuana potency claim is bogus. Money quote: “To get their scare figure, the Independent compared the worst cannabis from the past with the best cannabis of today. But you could have cooked the books the same way 30 years ago: in 1975 the weakest herbal cannabis analysed was 0.2%; in 1978 the strongest was 12%. Oh my god: in just three years herbal cannabis has become 60 times stronger. This scare isn’t new. In the US, in the mid 1980s, during Reagan’s “war on drugs”, it was claimed that cannabis was 14 times stronger than in 1970.”

    The potency of marijuana has little to do with how the drug is used. Anyone who has ever smoked weed knows that you don’t want to get that high. Users self-titrate and stop after they’ve had enough, otherwise you feel sick. I’ve seen people who OD on pot brownies and it’s an extremely unpleasant (though not life-threatening) experience. More potent marijuana just means you don’t smoke as much, which I would argue is a good thing (to keep tar and shit out of the lungs).

    Russell (b42f63)

  64. Apparently, the amount of actual dope in what ten bucks buys of both heroin and cocaine is dramatically greater than it was just about forty years ago, when the War on Some Drugs officially kicked off, despite the — literally — hundreds of billions of dollars flushed . . .

    . . . and this has been anything but a dramatic failure? How many more hundreds of billions should we flush?

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  65. Mike K: precisely. Ending Prohibition had costs — probably some increased harm done to society by people drinking when they wouldn’t have. But that was more than counterbalanced by all the harm that no longer was done in enforcing Prohibition, both the hard and the soft costs.

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  66. Actually I buy that pot may have become marginally more potent (or as consumers would say, “better”) over time. It’s a immutable result of the Iron Law of Prohibition, and as certain as water running downhill.

    CTD (53d3c5)

  67. Who claims decriminalization is a cure-all? The actual argument is that the costs of enforcement grossly outweigh the benefits.

    But, of course, the benefits are captured by politically powerful groups such as police and corrections officers, while the costs are imposed on the significantly less politically powerful, so rational policy outcomes are unlikely.

    Moops (8fcb37)

  68. Prohibition dosen’t work.

    http://leap.cc/

    Adam Smith’s invisible hand extends to illict markets as well.

    gbear (18bdd8)

  69. I know a lot of hippies read this sight, but still I’m amazed. Why the hell can’t we on the right admit that America’s tactics have, if not increased drug consumption (though I believe they have), at least they have had no effect whatsoever on it. Our great laws have given hard cash to Columbian and Afghanistani drug lords, just to name two, while taking cash from the American economy. Enough!

    If you believe incarceration will help the drug addict, then ask Obama, GWB, or Clinton when they think that spending time in jail would have helped their careers or their chance of being more productive members of society. I hope you can see that of course it would NOT have helped them live a fruitful life at all, and indeed would have hampered them.

    Seriously, I’m flabergasted. Most of us know that true addicts (I’m not talking about fakers like ‘addicted to marijuana’ people…. ‘ooh ooh, help me, i’m addicted to weed and sushi! And relaxing massages! I also have a penchant for goat cheese! I just don’t know where to turn! Can’t someone help me?! Waaaaah’!) will not get better until they decide to. Telling them what to do only results in them flipping us the finger, which is exactly what I would do if someone tried to dictate my life. There is no question in my mind that they will choose to live a normal life if given enough time (provided they survive).

    Kevin (e89cee)

  70. In short, patereeco, you have let us down.

    Kevin (e89cee)

  71. CTD: You are probably right about the potency, though I have heard of growers saying they have been trying to replicate the asian stuff from the 70’s for years. There is definitely an economic incentive to get more potent, though.

    What I was saying is that The Independent blatantly cherry-picked the statistics to get more scary numbers.

    Also:

    The actual argument is that the costs of enforcement grossly outweigh the benefits.

    Exactly! Drug policy reformers say a lot that the drug war has failed, so we should stop, but that sets us up for the strawman “well, we haven’t won the war against murder, should we legalize that too?”

    The point is the Prohibition causes more problems than it solves. Actually, it solves no problems (as should be obvious), and creates a whole legion of other ones. If anyone wants to see some reformers with street cred, see here.

    Russell (b42f63)

  72. Kevin:

    Why the hell can’t we on the right admit that America’s tactics have, if not increased drug consumption (though I believe they have), at least they have had no effect whatsoever on it.

    Because we on the right – well, most of us, anyway – aren’t retarded. Intelligent people can argue whether or not prohibition is morally justifiable, or whether it reduces illicit drug use enough to make up for the problems it causes. Only idiots argue that increasing the cost of anything will have no effect on consumption, let alone cause it to increase.

    Xrlq (1b3398)

  73. Xrlq: There’s no need to be rude. There is an economic model that accounts for a situation where an increase in price causes increased consumption; it’s called a Giffen good. Economists argue whether or not they exist, but they have been speculated about.

    But that’s just a simple supply and demand picture. What I think Kevin was talking about is that prohibition has romanticized drug use and caused an increase, not something that is accounted for in a simple economic model. Again, it’s far from clear, but it is true that in countries with less draconian drug laws like the Netherlands, drug use is much lower than in America. Again, one could argue the point, but it’s a reasonable position to hold.

    Russell (b42f63)

  74. DWPitelli answered…
    “The “revolution, murder, extortion, corruption and kidnapping” funded by illegal drug use are due to prohibition, and are one argument in favor of legalization, especially given Afghanistan as a major heroin source.”
    I think you missed my point. Drug users buy their drugs even though they know major crimes are commited to obtain them. The crime funded by illegal drug use come from people value their high more than someone else’s life. Why should the gruggies get what they want?

    tyree (b2fade)

  75. My brother was a big pot smoker. He felt he was loosing everything due to drugs.
    He wasd always depressed and tired.

    In one of his emotional days he asked me to help him locate some treatment. I found a program named Narconon Vista Bay.
    He loved it, it helped him and he has now been pot free for 2 years.

    I advise for everyone to get that kind of help. He’s much happier.

    Ricardo Lopez (5bb679)

  76. Pot is a gateway drug. Every study shows that.

    Well, if you work your statistic backwards. But then, so is beer a gateway drug to alcoholism. I’d bet you cigarette use (today) is higher among later addicts, too.

    Lots of things could be called “gateways”, as it’s all about risky behavior and extreme willfulness. Don’t see why one should single out pot.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  77. Oh, great. Narconon. Scientology front. Thanks for the visit.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  78. There is no question in my mind that they will choose to live a normal life if given enough time….

    That doesn’t make it true.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  79. Fridays … 8:30a is Drug Court … almost a social gathering for addicts who have been kicked out of Diversion or Prop 36. This is court supervised rehab with participants showing up every Friday or every other Friday. Luckily I only have to pull the files for first time “Release into Drug Court” hearings…. otherwise the 1/2″ thick calendar would be impossible to pull …

    1:30p is Prop 36 court. Review hearings for Diversion (PC1000) are also calendared. I pull about 30-40 files per Friday.

    And about half of them I’ll post FTA/BW (fail to appear/bench warrant) … more if the Friday falls on a major holiday weekend. Why not FTA? Show up the next week and it’s a given to be reinstated into Prop 36. Of the rest, some will be on their first or second drug-related violation ..and still reinstated. Some will have their hearings continued because they have failed yet again to report to probation or provide proof of enrollment, etc. A handful will be found to be in compliance and need no further hearings.

    And even a smaller percentage of all of these people will “graduate” whatever their rehab, complete their probation, and have their cases dismissed.

    I admit..watching these programs in action (or inaction) has left me a bit tinged with cynicism over the “compassion” Californians extended to addicts when they voted these rehab programs into being.

    Darleen (1176c2)

  80. How to tell if your a liberal YOU WANT TO BAN GUNS BUT LEGALIZE DOPE

    krazy kagu (7c8404)

  81. Ricardo Lopez’ brother is a shining example of how it should be. He complained that he didn’t like his life the way it was, asked for help, and received it. I thought Narcanon was for children of drug addicts, but whatever. It’s exactly the way the story should go. You can’t force help on people. But you can help them when they ask for it.

    In the mean time, how about taking some of the money that they are wasting destroying their lives and building up some cash reserves for when they change their minds and decide they want to live? You know, as an alternative to them giving it to some Afghani drug lord until the day we catch them doing drugs and toss ’em in a cell which effectively ends their productive lives?

    Xlrq said: Because we on the right – well, most of us, anyway – aren’t retarded. Intelligent people can argue whether or not prohibition is morally justifiable, or whether it reduces illicit drug use enough to make up for the problems it causes. Only idiots argue that increasing the cost of anything will have no effect on consumption, let alone cause it to increase.

    First of all, ouch. Second, who said anything about changing the cost of drugs? My personal view would be to make them legal and tax them to about 40% of what they cost now, thereby (hopefully) allowing drug addicts to buy them without the need for theft, burglary and murder, while taking money from the enemy and putting it to good use here at home. But I never said as much. I’d be fine with a test case where the drugs cost 100% as much, but we do need to test it. Der Nederlanden didn’t fall apart when they legalized, can’t we see what effect it will have upon America? How about we try it in Alaska or Hawaii?

    I should say, I don’t take drugs other than alcohol, though I smoked some weed as a kid. I’m not a fan of drugs, since I’ve seen them destroy a number of great friends in my life, only one of which recovered. So please don’t consider me a fan of the stuff. I just (almost religiously) believe that our government cannont, and SHOULD not try to make laws protecting people from themselves. It simply cannot be done, even in a nanny or socialist or even communist state.

    Our tax dollars would be so much better used if we taxed drugs and let drug addicts get to a point where they wanted help themselves. Then we could use those tax dollars that previously went to Columbian crime lords (etc.) to help them. And it would work, since they WANTED help, as opposed to being ordered to fix their lives. The added bonus is that the casual drug user who is not a problem will actually be helping the addict, since he’s paying into the system of help when he does drugs.

    I read a report somewhere that said 85% of jailed people in Texas were there for drug related crimes. The statement was (and is) pretty vague, but how much jail space can we free up for true criminals. Like burglars, rapists, murderers, or people who harm others while on drugs (yes, that would still be a crime in my brave new world)?

    Apologies for the soliloquy/diatribe.

    Kevin (e89cee)

  82. Krazy kagu, what do you call someone who wants to legalize both? I call myself conservative. Am I?

    Kevin (e89cee)

  83. Great, a doper with a gun.

    nk (37b8ef)

  84. Kevin: I would probably be called a liberal and I agree with you on both issues–well, guns are already legal for the most part–but funny, eh? One would almost think that there are more than two ways of thinking.

    Russell (b42f63)

  85. “Great, a doper with a gun.”

    That’s what’s called a ‘target’. Don’t be silly nk. No one’s interested in helping the drug user who’s hurting/endangering others. I’m not even saying we should help people who want to do drugs! Only that we should take the profit of that usage from the drug lords and put it in American coffers.

    Draconian rules for driving drunk? Ok. Draconian rules for driving high? Sure. Harming others is and should be a criminal offense. Killing yourself with opiates, cocaine, or (the absolute slowest way of killing yourself) marijuana should be entirely legal.

    Seriously, who are we as a nation to say that you can risk your life driving a car, eating fatty meat, smoking tobacco, eating high cholesterol food, drinking alcohol, or living in an earthquake zone, but you absolutely can’t take drugs, ’cause they’re dangerous!

    Frankly, it’s embarassing. Freedom means ‘freedom to make mistakes’, even if they are horrendously stupid mistakes. Sad as that sounds, I’m still forced to coin a new phrase:

    Give me freedom, or give me death.

    I’m pretty sure I made that up.

    Kevin (e89cee)

  86. Prop 36 and similar programs have always been a controversial topic. I feel that rehabilitating criminals who are addicticed to drugs and alcohol is a wonderful idea, so long as the person wants to change and is willing to work at it. Here at Narconon Vista Bay we have had great success working with people who have both substance abuse problems and legal issues.

    Steve (0af894)

  87. Kevin:

    First of all, ouch. Second, who said anything about changing the cost of drugs? My personal view would be to make them legal and tax them to about 40% of what they cost now, thereby (hopefully) allowing drug addicts to buy them without the need for theft, burglary and murder, while taking money from the enemy and putting it to good use here at home. But I never said as much. I’d be fine with a test case where the drugs cost 100% as much, but we do need to test it.

    Simply legalizing drugs, while taking no other actions, would cause the price to plummet. On the plus side, that would erase the “need” for any addict to steal to support his habit. On the negative side, it’s as good as a given that at least some people who won’t shell out $300 to shoot up, will gladly do so for $3. Artificially propping up the price through taxation would reduce this impact somewhat, but would also preserve the black market and all that goes with that, with street prices enough lower than legal market prices to compete. Plus, any solution that leaves the price of illicit drugs anywhere near where it is now will also invariably preserve the motive of junkies to steal, even if it reduces it somewhat (e.g., they now have to steal “only” 40% of what they previously stole).

    Even if the taxes were set just right to put licit prices where illicit prices are now, we’d still be lowering the illicit price (which would now have to compete with the licit market), and even the legal price would be lower in every meaningful sense, i.e., paying $300.00 plus sales tax to a pharmacist is not the same cost as paying $300.00, sans sales tax, to a street dealer who might kill you, OD you with an unknown concentration, or inadvertently get you shot or arrested simply by being there. Yet some people do drugs even under the current, extremely unfavorable conditions. Thus, it’s axiomatic that there are at least some people who currently think the price of doing drugs is too high, will no longer think that when the costs of drug use, both in absolute dollars and in terms of criminal liability and street risks, is sharply reduced.

    I’m not arguing for prohibition here. In fact, I lean toward the libertarian view. I just think that to discuss the issue intelligently, we must accept the reality that making drugs more easily available, at a lower price, will inevitably exacerbate the problem of drug abuse. The question is whether the upside to legalization (e.g., ending the organized crime associated with the cartels and removing junkies’ incentive to steal and Radley Balko’s incentive to write) is worth it. I lean toward the view that it is, but it’s a brainer.

    Xrlq (6a68a2)

  88. What does it mean to represent the American people? What do the American people expect from their representatives? How well do you feel your Representatives in Congress are doing the job of representing you, your children, your future? How much longer are we as a people going to allow the two party system of Democrats and Republicans to prevent any real changes in the fabric of our society? When each party pulls its Freshmen Representatives and Legislators into private sessions and tells them they are going to vote the party line or be opposed in the next elections by the party itself, what real change can be expected from them? Such a state of affairs creates an atmosphere in which each party must steadfastly and consistently denounce the other parties’ ideas as a matter of course, regardless of the merits to be found in the oppositions ideas.

    What does the future hold for an America trapped in a 100+ year war on drugs and facing the reality that we have never even been close to winning? How many futures have been lost or compromised by the tendency of the judiciary to throw the harshest sentences at non-violent crimes and a penal system that plays favorites with murderers, rapists and pedophiles? I believe that there are very simple things that can be done that would provide incredible results in a timescale of weeks and months rather than years and decades!!!

    Imagine if you will a national drug policy that would immediately take billions of dollars out of the hands of Hostile Governments, Terrorists, Organized Crime Cartels, Gangs, and corrupt Politicians, Peace Officers, Judges and Lawyers and put that money into practical use by the people and for the people! Imagine a policy that would allow for an evolution in the tax code making it possible to eradicate the property tax on U.S. citizens and for the first time in the history of our country provide Americans the opportunity to truly own the property they have paid for. Imagine a public policy that would provide for the downtrodden, the weak, the elderly and the mentally disabled and addicted, without demanding that more capable and or responsible American’s be held back by being made to pay for those that can’t or won’t pay for themselves.. Imagine a national drug policy that made sense and created results that could be immediately seen and felt throughout the country and the classes!!!

    All of these things are completely possible, but not until we shed some very old and destructive ideas. The first and most damaging belief that neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to be willing to let go, is the idea that you can control an addictive commodity by criminalizing it. For over 100 years we as a nation have continued to believe that by making the most addictive commodities illegal to possess or distribute that we can eradicate the desire for the commodity itself. When that has failed to work we have continued the lunacy by increasing the fines and penalties for dealing in addictive commodities. However, all that these laws have done is increase the demand and the supply by making addictive commodities so lucrative that even people not considering such wares from a point of desperation have been hard pressed to stay away from them. Furthermore the policy trend has brought about an open fear and deep-seated contempt for police officers and law enforcement agencies that have had to become paramilitary organizations to keep up with the gangs and cartels that these policies have created!!!

    Imagine what the reality of decriminalization for addictive commodities would be. I am referring to ALL ADDICTIVE COMMODITIES. If marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other such addictive commodities were decriminalized, HEAVILY taxed and the proceeds for those commodities were used to eradicate the property tax, several things could be reasonably expected to immediately follow. First and foremost, terrorists, organized crime cartels and gangs would lose control of the most lucrative commodities the world has ever known and the best market for such commodities in the world. Property values in the United Sates would soar, and agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency that cost American taxpayers billions of dollars annually without providing comparable results could be closed down. Last year the D.E.A.’s budget was two and one half Billion dollars. How many busses, computers, textbooks, and other educational expenses could that single budget pay for? How many addicts could be brought back to a more productive and healthy lifestyle with an annual budget of 2.5 billion dollars?

    How many Americans are arrested and given criminal records each and every day as a result of our current policies? Between January 12, 2005 and September 30, 2005, there were 4,396 Federal offenders sentenced for marijuana-related charges in U.S. Courts. Think about that for a moment, almost 4,400 people incarcerated just on federal charges and only related to marijuana, in only 9 months! California alone averages 400,000 drug related arrests every year. What would the national impact of immediately ceasing such arrests be? It is time to use public policies at state and federal levels to moderate the use of the most damaging and destructive substances while using the proceeds to help those who want to quit get all the help and care they require to get clean and stay clean.

    History has given us all the lessons we should require on this subject. The criminalization of alcohol created the highest crime and murder rates known to this country until the cartels and gangs made addictive commodities their stock in trade. Now with our National Security threatened by the liquidity of such commodities and the attraction of terrorists to such revenue streams, the war on drugs must be ended to prevent inadvertently aiding the terrorist war against western civilization. It is time to control the commodities and the proceeds in the only manner possible. By legalizing the sale and distribution of these commodities through state controlled and federally monitored retailers and taxing these commodities 300% or more.

    The United States of America could see crime rates drop as much as 50%, possibly more within one year, and I would also expect the same rate of decrease in the national murder rate within a mere matter of months. The men and woman who represent us and our individual states owe it to each constituent to have an honest debate about this issue and to shed the ignorance and fear that has cost so many Americans their lives and the freedom of so many citizens for over 100 years and counting.

    Martin Sims (3f0246)

  89. Maybe it comes as a surprise to the editors of the L.A. Times that you can’t force drug offenders to complete drug programs without a credible threat of incarceration.

    So does incarceration end drug use?

    Grotius (542623)

  90. I’m told one thing, and one thing only, ends drug use: the user’s decision to stop.

    But the system can be more or less effective in helping people to reach that decision. The stats show Prop. 36 has been less effective than treatment with a credible threat of incarceration.

    Does punishment end bad behavior by kids? Nope. But it helps to.

    Patterico (772a91)

  91. Patterico,

    I’m told one thing, and one thing only, ends drug use: the user’s decision to stop.

    That tells me that people should be afforded the liberty to make that decision on their own.

    But the system can be more or less effective in helping people to reach that decision.

    How effective is the “system” of incarceration?

    Grotius (542623)

  92. Anyway, when it comes to drugs legislation there are few preliminary questions to be asked.

    (A) Who owns your body?

    (B) If the individual owns it then when may the government impede on those ownership rights?

    (C) In determining (B) what sort of scheme should one use?

    Grotius (542623)

  93. Anthony…

    \”…Scientists, addiction specialists and even former addicts are at pains to explain how addiction is a \”lifelong affliction\”, that full recovery is difficult and, for some addicts, impossible…\”…

    Anthony (11a68f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1268 secs.