Law Enforcement Against (Drug) Prohibition

[Wrecked944]

I had to post this because I am very impressed by the sincerity and thoughtfulness of the people involved. I know one of the founders personally - Lt Jack Cole - and while we are not blood relatives, it is not a coincidence that we have the same last name. I always opposed drug prohibition on libertarian grounds. But these guys oppose it from the point of view of people with guns and badges trying to protect the public from criminals. If you find it interesting, by all means click on their video and give it a watch. They make a pretty compelling case.

http://leap.cc/

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JanusCole
I had to post this because I am very impressed by the sincerity and thoughtfulness of the people involved. I know one of the founders personally - Lt Jack Cole - and while we are not blood relatives, it is not a coincidence that we have the same last name. I always opposed drug prohibition on libertarian grounds. But these guys oppose it from the point of view of people with guns and badges trying to protect the public from criminals. If you find it interesting, by all means click on their video and give it a watch. They make a pretty compelling case.

http://leap.cc/

A cop friend of mine agrees with this, and all protections offered the individual by the Second Amendment as well.

His speculation about the increases in Cops shooting individuals during raids has to do with the increase of "things against the law" which directly increase the contact bwtween cops and individuals with tragic results, which he thinks is a bad thing.

I agree.

[legion]

Wow...I find myself nodding my head as I read through the LEAP website.

[DavidI]

I disagree that drugs should be legalized. The problem is that the addiction factor can be instantateous. I am not talking about marijuana (although I would not want that legal either), but stuff like meth, cocaine, rock, heroin, PCP. After a single use, a person can become addicted. I have had family members who became dope fiends. First they destroy their family, then their friends, then the family gives them another chance, and the cycle continues until the person has nothing left. I have seen it first-hand not only as a cop, but within my own family. The person who becomes addicted does whatever it takes to continue the high. In women's cases, some resort to selling their bodies. In men's cases, they steal or rob for a quick high.

If a person wants to destroy their own body, so be it. The problem is that dope affects the people around the addict. That is where I have a problem.

David

[fastpat]

Originally posted by DavidI
I disagree that drugs should be legalized. The problem is that the addiction factor can be instantateous. I am not talking about marijuana (although I would not want that legal either), but stuff like meth, cocaine, rock, heroin, PCP. After a single use, a person can become addicted. I have had family members who became dope fiends. First they destroy their family, then their friends, then the family gives them another chance, and the cycle continues until the person has nothing left. I have seen it first-hand not only as a cop, but within my own family. The person who becomes addicted does whatever it takes to continue the high. In women's cases, some resort to selling their bodies. In men's cases, they steal or rob for a quick high.

If a person wants to destroy their own body, so be it. The problem is that dope affects the people around the addict. That is where I have a problem.

David

All rights are property rights, i.e. I own my self and I own my rights. Further, there is no inherrent power for government, any government, to prohibit anything. It is not within the purview of the state to regulate my behavior because someone might get "addicted", it's a part of being responsible for one's self as a part of self ownership.

The police power exists because of individual power. Cops cannot have any power beyond the power possessed by any individual, since the powers granted to the police come from the power possessed by individuals, not from any aggregate of people claiming to be represented by the state by the state itself, that's self empowerment and is not a power granted in America. Essentially, the police are a professional posse, made so for two reasons primarily; one is so that many of us don't have to take the time to join in our common law duty as a posse member, and two, so that the full time posse can become more skillful in the duties of the posse. All powers of the posse derive from the powers possessed by the individual and granted to the professional posse.

Drug laws are anathema to a free society, and have caused many times more harm than addiction no matter what your personal experiences may indicate to you. A huge part of the problems addiction causes in America are directly related to the prohibition of drugs, i.e. government.

[Dottore]

Originally posted by DavidI
After a single use, a person can become addicted. I have had family members who became dope fiends. First they destroy their family, then their friends, then the family gives them another chance, and the cycle continues until the person has nothing left. I have seen it first-hand not only as a cop, but within my own family. The person who becomes addicted does whatever it takes to continue the high. In women's cases, some resort to selling their bodies. In men's cases, they steal or rob for a quick high.

If a person wants to destroy their own body, so be it. The problem is that dope affects the people around the addict. That is where I have a problem.

David

All evidence in Europe - particularly the Netherlands and Switzerland (where soft drugs are legal - and hard drug user can be registered and obtain clean drugs and needles etc) show that it is the criminalization of these drugs that is responsible for the criminality involved in paying for the drugs. One leads to the other.

Crime rates have dropped dramatically in these countries since measure to de-criminalize were introduced.

The fact is people will use drugs - whether or not they are legalized. This is no different from the prohibition era. The only issue is whether we want to spend billions on arresting these people and processing them through the criminal justice system, prosecuting them, and incarcerating them etc etc.

A stupendous waste of money - that could be put towards education and healthcare etc.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Dottore
All evidence in Europe - particularly the Netherlands and Switzerland (where soft drugs are legal - and hard drug user can be registered and obtain clean drugs and needles etc) show that it is the criminalization of these drugs that is responsible for the criminality involved in paying for the drugs. One leads to the other.

Crime rates have dropped dramatically in these countries since measure to de-criminalize were introduced.

The fact is people will use drugs - whether or not they are legalized. This is no different from the prohibition era. The only issue is whether we want to spend billions on arresting these people and processing them through the criminal justice system, prosecuting them, and incarcerating them etc etc.

There are drug users and drug abusers; who are not the same people; further, drug abusers are a subset of alcohol abusers many times, meaning that with drug legalization we would not expect to find a huge new set of problems from it. Almost any drug is available in any place in America within three miles or less from any home in America, drug prohibition is clearly a failure from that standpoint alone.

A stupendous waste of money - that could be put towards education and healthcare etc.

Or simply not stolen from it's owners in the first place.

[Hugh R]

Show me where in the Constitution it says the government has a right to regulate what I put in my body, or what I do in my bedroom. I'm sick of the Dems and Reps. dictating to me what's "moral". Yeah, Yeah, I know about having laws against killing, bank robbery etc, but I'm talking about what I don't even see as "victimless' crimes, whose the victim? Me?

[David]

Originally posted by DavidI
I disagree that drugs should be legalized. The problem is that the addiction factor can be instantateous. I am not talking about marijuana (although I would not want that legal either), but stuff like meth, cocaine, rock, heroin, PCP. After a single use, a person can become addicted. I have had family members who became dope fiends. First they destroy their family, then their friends, then the family gives them another chance, and the cycle continues until the person has nothing left. I have seen it first-hand not only as a cop, but within my own family. The person who becomes addicted does whatever it takes to continue the high. In women's cases, some resort to selling their bodies. In men's cases, they steal or rob for a quick high.

If a person wants to destroy their own body, so be it. The problem is that dope affects the people around the addict. That is where I have a problem.

David

I think it's the fact that they are illegal that users resort to prostitution and theft to support their overpriced habit. How many people do you hear about that rob people to buy a bottle of MD2020 or a pack of cigarettes?

[LeRoux Strydom]

The difficulty with drawing the line comes when your children are exposed to drugs. You may not care what you put in your body, and I agree with that, but I most certainly care what my children put in their bodies until they can decide for themselves when they become adults. I do not want them to be exposed to that sort of choice by external influences out of my control.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by LeRoux Strydom
The difficulty with drawing the line comes when your children are exposed to drugs. You may not care what you put in your body, and I agree with that, but I most certainly care what my children put in their bodies until they can decide for themselves when they become adults. I do not want them to be exposed to that sort of choice by external influences out of my control.

I agree with that, however, it is solely your responsibilty to prevent your child's exposure.

Alcohol isn't prohibited, how often are they offered alcohol? The facts are that since children don't have money to buy drugs, if drugs were legal and sold through an infrastructure as the case with alcohol and tobacco; your children would run less risk than they do now.

You do realize that your children are being exposed to drug availability right now, don't you? When there is prohibition of any "thing" there is no control over that "thing".

[GDSOB]

War on Drugs
War on Poverty
War on Terror

Hopefully the US govt won't declare war on anything else. How about 100x less laws & enforce the he!! out of them.

Locally, our Cincinnati city council just increased the penalty for possession of small quantities of marijuana, meanwhile downtown is a war zone with the drug gangs on track for a record number of homicides. Yeah, that'll do the trick. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by GDSOB
War on Drugs
War on Poverty
War on Terror

Hopefully the US govt won't declare war on anything else. How about 100x less laws & enforce the he!! out of them.

Locally, our Cincinnati city council just increased the penalty for possession of small quantities of marijuana, meanwhile downtown is a war zone with the drug gangs on track for a record number of homicides. Yeah, that'll do the trick. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...

There are those that think America needs to nullify all laws written after December 31, 1912 including the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.

I'd go along with that.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Hugh R
Show me where in the Constitution it says the government has a right to regulate what I put in my body, or what I do in my bedroom. I'm sick of the Dems and Reps. dictating to me what's "moral". Yeah, Yeah, I know about having laws against killing, bank robbery etc, but I'm talking about what I don't even see as "victimless' crimes, whose the victim? Me?

Completely agree!

As well if we are going to outlaw pot, then lets also outlaw whiskey, scotch and so on and see how long our "leaders" in Washington DC and state capitals can live with this. They are just as bad and I could care less if they are "accepted by society" or not.

How many of us have at sometime in our life smoked a joint, done a line or eaten some "magic mushrooms" only to return to having our cocktail every night? Yes, drugs are addictive to some people, especially meth, but the majority of people I know who use or used them said no and went back to a socially acceptable drug, booze.

I am going much more damage to my body with my nightly cocktail or beer (or even one every two or three nights) than I ever did with any recreational drugs.

[Dottore]

Originally posted by LeRoux Strydom
The difficulty with drawing the line comes when your children are exposed to drugs. You may not care what you put in your body, and I agree with that, but I most certainly care what my children put in their bodies until they can decide for themselves when they become adults. I do not want them to be exposed to that sort of choice by external influences out of my control.

If drugs that are currently illegal were de-criminalized and controlled through government outlets etc there would be a better chance that your kids would not be exposed to them.

There are studies showing that the"forbidden fruit" element is in part what makes drugs attractive to kids at a young age. And it is certainly true that drugs today are easier for kids to obtain than alcohol.

One really astonishing sign of the failure of the war on drugs is the number of people currently incarcerated for drug offences in the US. These statistics recently appeared in The Economist - but I don't have them to hand. In any case the US had the worlds highest percapita incarceration rate by a factor of 3 or 4 - way higher than any comparably developed country - with more than half of these being in for drug related offenses. What an extraordinary waste of money and human capital!

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Dottore What an extraordinary waste of money and human capital!

Its much, much worse than that. The additional problem is that now these people who are in prison for enjoying their version of a drink at night now have a criminal record, something that will last the rest of their lives. It makes it difficult to get a job, buy a car, house and so on and for what?

The second thing is that prison is school for criminals. Good people go in and come out knowing how to cheat the system and break the law and get away with it.

A good friend of mine is a warden at a major Federal prison. He just shakes his head when they get people busted for petty crimes like this, because the come out in a few years as real criminals, not anything like the person they were when they entered.

[Tervuren]

Originally posted by Dottore
If drugs that are currently illegal were de-criminalized and controlled through government outlets etc there would be a better chance that your kids would not be exposed to them.

Wait - so your proposal is the for government to be the dealer?

[Dottore]

Originally posted by Tervuren
Wait - so your proposal is the for government to be the dealer?

Dealer or regulator or taxing authority...whatever. As long as quality is closely monitored and taxes raised.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Tervuren
Wait - so your proposal is the for government to be the dealer?

Governments are already in the drug-dealing business. In Virginia, you can only buy alcohol at a state-run ABC store.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Dottore
Dealer or regulator or taxing authority...whatever. As long as quality is closely monitored and taxes raised.

I disagree, we don't need another government agency to be between ourselves and something we wish to acquire, or to produce. In fact, granting government control over drugs might be worse than what we have today in many instances.

Here's an example. LaGunitas Brewing in Petaluma, CA was going to introduce a particular ale, and call it a specific name, I forget the name, but that's not important. They have to submit a name for a product to the BATFAE for approval before they can put it on the market, in this case the BATFAE told them that the name was disapproved because it might encourage drinking. Yes, got the story right from one of the managers of the brewery. So, they submitted a new name, and Censored Ale is now sold on the market today, I think Safeway and Bevmo carries it.

So, how did that come to be, you ask? Well, when the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, the Constitution didn't go back to the status quo ante, a rather large sliver of it remained.

Amendment XXI

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

States were encouraged to regulate alcohol, and the BATFAE which had come to exist first to collect taxes on alcohol, themselves unConstitutional levy, and expanded tremendously by Prohibition, continued undiminished in size by enforcing that part of Prohibition left intact, and of course received another enhanced power via the National Firearms Act of 1934, another unConstitutional law.

So, please, no government involvement.