|
|
|
FAQ, part 1
| Q: I am a liberal democrat. Why should I support drug policy reform? |
Drug enforcement policies are inherently racist. Although almost five times as many whites use illegal drugs as African Americans, nearly twice the number of black men and women are being put behind bars for drug offenses. At current rates, a black man has a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime, compared to 1 in 17 for white males.
Study after study, including this Rand report shows that treatment for drug addicts is seven times more effective than enforcement. Yet the government continues to put its resources in enforcement and interdiction.
The billions spent on enforcement take away funding for positive programs such as education, inner city development, head start, after school activities, and others which would have a greater effect on reducing drug addiction.
Use of any illicit drug among band/orchestra
members was lower than for those who did not participate in band or
orchestra (8 percent versus 17 percent). [Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse - pdf]
Current drug prohibition efforts are damaging to the environment. We're engaged in extensive eradication efforts in Central and South America that are dangerous to crops and civilians, and could have long term negative effects to the ecosystems. This is encouraging the lucrative drug trade (lucrative because it's illegal) to encroach further into the rain forests, causing even more destruction. Eradication efforts have been shown not to work -- clamping down in one area just causes production to pop up elsewhere. By legalizing and regulating, the illegal profits will be gone, and these countries can develop a true, managed agricultural society that will be more peaceful and less destructive. (See Drug War Facts for more.) Also, prohibition has encouraged the growth of illegal methamphetamine labs which leave toxic chemicals (much like the illegal stills during alcohol prohibition).
It's surely time for this nation to stop flying blind, stop accepting the assurances of politicians and other officials, that if we only keep doing what we are doing, add a little more cash, break down a few more doors, lock up a few more Jan Warrens and Nicole Richardsons, then we will see the light at the end of the tunnel. Victory will be ours...
We cannot go into tomorrow with the same formulas that are failing today. We must not blindly add to the body count and the terrible cost of the War on Drugs, only to learn from another Robert McNamara 30 years from now that what we've been doing is, "wrong, terribly wrong."
- Walter Cronkite
| Q: I am a conservative republican. Why should I support drug policy reform? |
Drug Policy in the United States has turned into one of the most expensive boondoggles in history. We have bloated federal agencies like the DEA and the ONDCP which have spent billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars with no results and no accountability. From 1986-2002, the DEA seized 1,000 tons of cocaine, 22,000 pounds of heroin, 10 million pounds of marijuana, and over 1.5 billion doses of meth, and yet all of these drugs are plentiful. Every year, these government agencies do splashy arrests and high-cost investigations that have no impact on drug availability or use, and come back to the tax money trough for more.
It costs taxpayers approximately $24,000 a year to keep one drug offender in prison (about twice that for a juvenile). This doesn't even begin to touch the cost to taxpayers of enforcement and prosecution.
The drug war violates basic conservative principles such as individual liberty and responsibility, free market economics, and states' rights.
Even 2nd Amendment rights are endangered by the drug war. Prohibition fuels criminal violence, which in turn provides strong incentive to gun control efforts. And responsible gun owners could find themselves knocked off by the government due to drug war tactics.
According to Human Rights Watch, there are 23,537 minor children just in New York who have at least one parent in prison for drug offenses. Imagine this number translated nationwide. This results in broken families, children raised without parents, and increased welfare costs.
A wide and respected range of conservatives have come out for drug policy reform and/or legalization, including Republican Governors, law enforcement officers, and such conservative leaders as William F. Buckley, Jr. and the National Review.
Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.
- William F. Buckley, Jr.
| Q: I am a libertarian. Why should I support drug policy reform? |
Well, duh! If you need to ask, you're probably not a libertarian.
| Q: I am a Christian and believe that drug use is immoral, and marijuana should therefore be illegal. |
"Then God said, I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it." (Genesis 1:29)
While most historians believe that marijuana existed in biblical times and was used for a variety of positive purposes, the most relevant actual bible quotes relate to the use of alcohol, so let's take a look at that.
According to Biblical Nutrition: Alcohol and the Bible:
All but one of the 40 negative references to alcohol in the Bible concern the abuse of alcohol.
On the positive side, there are 59 references to the commonly accepted practice of drinking wine (and strong drink) with meals, 27 references to the abundance of wine as an example of God's blessing, 20 references to the loss of wine and strong drink as an example of God's curse, 25 references to the use of wine in offerings and sacrifices, 9 references to wine being used as a gift, and 5 metaphorical references to wine as a basis for a favorable comparison. Total positive references: 145
Clearly, the Bible does not condemn use, but rather abuse. (See also the analysis at the same site for the "weaker brother" argument.) There's no reason to consider that marijuana would be in some completely different spiritual category than alcohol.
However, there are some Christians who believe in abstinence and some who believe in moderation. Those are both perfectly acceptable personal spiritual beliefs and do not require civil prohibition.
In fact, civil prohibition often acts as an allure, providing temptation for the forbidden, and since it is a criminal act, this brings the drug user into the criminal world and further from the church.
My personal view is that a plant that can provide nutrition, fiber for rope and clothing, essential oils, health benefits, and celebration all in one is a miracle.
Check out:
"We want to do just like Jesus did," said Charles Thomas, executive director of Unitarian Universalists for Drug Policy Reform. "The people who were the most ostracized in society in Jesus' day were lepers. Today's drug addicts are modern-day lepers. We feel that, according to our Christian heritage, it 's important to follow Jesus."
Among the proposals: Establish a legal, regulated, and taxed market for marijuana. Treat marijuana as we treat alcohol. Remove criminal penalties for possession and use of currently illegal drugs, with drug abusers subject to arrest and imprisonment only if they commit an actual crime ( e.g. assault, burglary, impaired driving, vandalism ). End sentencing inequities drive by racial profiling. Make all drugs legally available with a prescription by a licensed physician, subject to professional oversight. End the practice of punishing an individual for obtaining, possessing, or using an otherwise illegal substance to treat a medical condition and allow medically administered drug maintenance as a treatment option for drug addiction.
"We are hopeful that this powerful statement will pave the way for other denominations to join the movement for more just and compassionate drug policies," Mr. Thomas said.
| Q: I have a relative/friend/acquaintance who died or had his/her life ruined from drugs. How can you suggest legalizing drugs when they are so destructive? |
A situation like this is a terrible tragedy. However, it does not mean that drug criminalization is the answer. I assume that this tragedy happened when drugs were illegal, yet the billions of dollars and extensive law enforcement resources did not prevent it.
In some cases, drug abuse tragedies will happen whether drugs are legal or illegal. On the other hand, criminal prohibition often adds to the dangers:
- Criminalization of drugs adds a stigma to drug abuse that often prevents people from seeking help. It is easier to get friends to help you quit smoking cigarettes, or attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, than to ask for help in kicking an illegal drug habit
- Stigma can also interfere with seeking medical attention in the case of an overdose or severe reaction. Someone who would not hesitate to rush a friend with alcohol poisoning to the emergency room, may wait a dangerous time considering what to do with a friend who has overdosed.
- The current lack of any regulation of drugs increases the risk of tainted drugs and uncertain potency, which can lead to overdoses and other problems.
- The resistance to providing clean syringes to drug addicts increases AIDS and other blood-born diseases.
- Current law in many cases prevents organizations and individuals from pursuing other harm-reduction activities, such as providing ecstasy testing kits to make sure people know what they're taking.
- Illegal drug dealers want to hook clients in order to obtain future profits. A legalized, regulated system limits that motive. (Although claims can be justified that alcohol and cigarette manufacturers also try to enslave their customers, the pressure to do so is less direct and immediate than the drug dealer/addict relationship.)
- With illegal drugs, the drug purchaser is put into a situation of dealing with criminals, and is thus more likely to be involved in violent and dangerous situations.
The truth is that many, but not all, of the dangers associated with drug abuse can be eliminated or reduced through the end of prohibition. For the rest, prohibition won't help, but increased stigma-free treatment and education programs can.
The question remaining is whether legalization schemes will increase drug abuse. The evidence says "no." Most experts believe that a certain increase in use would occur, but those prone to addiction are likely to find their drug regardless of the legal status (perhaps even helped along under prohibition by their "pusher.") The Netherlands, which has much more liberal policies regarding drug use, actually has lower rates of drug use and drug abuse than the United States.
| Q: I believe in law and order and am strongly concerned about crime. Why should I support drug policy reform? |
Drug prohibition is one of the chief causes of violent crime.
We should have learned from the first failed prohibition experiment: alcohol. When alcohol was prohibited, people still wanted alcohol. With a ready and strong demand, the supply will always come forward to meet the need. So alcohol distribution created a massive criminal network, with huge profits and massive corruption. In order to protect the profits, the criminal network used violence and shoot-outs became common. How often do you hear of shoot-outs between alcohol dealers over turf today?
The same pattern has occurred with drug prohibition. Massive black market profits develop criminal networks for distribution and sales. As criminal penalties increase, profits increase, and drug dealers (rather than stopping) turn to violence to protect turf and prevent capture.
Let's say you arrest a drug dealer and put him away. There's still a demand for the drug, so someone else steps up due to the lure of profits. Now you have another dealer. When the first one gets out of prison, the one occupation he'll be prepared for is drug dealing. If you get too many dealers, violence breaks out in turf wars.
For the drug addicts, prohibition not only discourages treatment, but increases the cost of supplying the habit, often encouraging criminal activity.
Switzerland is now leading the way out of prohibition. In 1994, it started prescribing free heroin to long-term addicts who had failed to respond to law enforcement or any other treatment. In 1998, a Lausanne criminologist, Martin Kilias, found that the users' involvement in burglary, mugging and robbery had fallen by 98%; in shoplifting, theft and handling by 88%; in selling soft drugs by 70%; in selling hard drugs by 91%. As a group, their contacts with police had plunged to less than a quarter of the previous level. The Dutch and the Germans have had similar results with the same strategy. All of them report that, apart from these striking benefits in crime prevention, the users are also demonstrably healthier ( because clean heroin properly used is a benign drug ) and that they are more stable with clear improvements in housing, employment and relationships. [ The Guardian]
High black market profits often leads to corruption within law enforcement.
The Drug War makes it more difficult for law enforcement to serve and protect the people. If you figure that 19 million people used some kind of illegal drug last year, that means that a huge portion of the population is considered "criminal." Add to that their families and friends and you have a massive potential to avoid cooperation with the police. (And it's not like cheating on your taxes -- you don't fear that if you call the police for help they'll sniff around for your capital gains statements.) With a victimless crime like drug use, law enforcement are forced to use spying and subterfuge against its own citizens in order to find offenders. This also reduces the good will that should exist between law enforcement and the general population. Without that support, property crimes and violent crimes are harder to solve or prevent.
Drug prohibition enforcement diverts law enforcement resources away from other crimes, including murder, theft, and even terrorism.
In Phoenix, where the now infamous Ken Williams memo originated, counterterrorism agents complained bitterly about their efforts being given "the lowest investigative priority" by a supervisor who preferred glamorous drug-fighting investigations.
Also see:
| Q: I am an illegal drug dealer. Why should I support drug policy reform? |
Actually, you shouldn't support drug policy reform.
Drug legalization would put you out of a job, and take away all your profits. In order to continue to sell drugs, you'd have to become a business person, pay taxes, follow regulations, stop selling to kids, make sure your product is not tainted, and a bunch of other things that would make life very annoying for you.
Who would buy drugs from you illegally, if they can get what they need from legal, safe sources? You'd be like some pathetic beer salesman trying to sell black market six-packs of Budweiser on the corner. People would look at you like you're an idiot.
Forget the quick big bucks. Now you'll have to get a job, probably starting at a fast-food place because you don't have a real resume, and you'll have to work your way up like everyone else. Since you didn't finish school, it'll be harder.
Sorry.
|
|
|
