Mike Gravel Vows to End the War on Drugs
I already mentioned this in the comments section of Holly’s post, but I think it bears repeating.
During last night’s Democratic Presidential Debate at Howard University in Washington D.C., Mike Gravel gave a rather impassioned speech in which he denounced the War on Drugs and called for its immediate end:
And one of the areas that touches me the most and enrages me the most is our War on Drugs that this country has been putting forth for the last generation.
In 1972, we had 179,000 human beings in jail in this country. Today it’s 2.3 million, and 70% of them are black African-Americans. And I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up and saying like FDR did with Prohibition, “We’ll do away with that.” And FDR did it.
And if I’m president, I will do away with the War on Drugs, which does nothing but savage our inner cities and put our children at risk!
For those of you keeping count, that’s now three presidential candidates (Democrats Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul) who have come out against the War on Drugs and vowed to end it. They join the Libertarians and Greens, whose parties have also vowed to end the War on Drugs.
What will be the response of the remaining Democratic and Republican candidates, who have been completely silent on this issue during the course of the campaign thus far? Will they denounce Mike Gravel and defend America’s 35-year long War on Drugs? Does anyone expect Rudy Giuliani to remind us of his “zero tolerance” position on drugs or Joe Biden to brag about his RAVE Act?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
98 Responses to “Mike Gravel Vows to End the War on Drugs”
Nick Rivera:
No, I ask you to consider all those laws.
I address this not in association with your mistaken logic earlier, but because of something else: What do you expect, if you merely look at this, or at the “alcohol model” for additionally legalized drugs, if those other drugs are legalized? Guess what. You’re going to see more such laws, for all the new drugs, and more laws because different drugs, due their different natures, will be treated differently and require different (more) regulations.
That is the issue insofar as the effect on the quantity or complexity of laws is from legalization of more drugs.
I asked:
Somebody replied:
Somebody,
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe that America is worse off on account of ending Alcohol Prohibition?
If so, the next logical question is to ask: Do you favor a return to Alcohol Prohibition?
Let’s cut to the chase here. Are you a Prohibitionist?
Somebody:
Yes, possibly the #2 offender after smoking. While blanket Prohibition was a failure mainly because we are a nation that has enjoyed drinking, it is a health and safety problem and merits regulation because of this. Also, incidentally, diseases like cirrhosis were reduced during Prohibition. At least some people actually did refrain from drinking while it was in effect, with positive results on health. (No, that is not an argument for restoring Prohibition; the costs exceeded the benefits. I’d even favor legalizing marijuana at this time if its use could be properly regulated and there were harsher penalties–same for alcohol and nay other drug affecting motor skills and reasoning–for driving under the influence.)
It also leads to injuries and fatalities, lost work time, etc.
I support a reduction from .08 to .05 for DWI. There is a mountain of evidence supporting this. (Look it up yourselves. It’s there. There are good reasons why many nations have limits that are lower than .08. The “.05 activists” here or elsewhere have my support.)
There’s nothing wrong with taxing it to the point of recovering the costs associated with its use and abuse. The only limit to this is if the taxes become so high that in practice they need to be limited to reduce or to constrain tax evasion through smuggling. Just as ought to be true with tobacco.
There’s nothing in that that is “social engineering” (it’s just cost recovery, particularly if government health and other expenditures are involved), nor is it dictatorial or tyrannical (the kind of crap you may hear if you propose speed limiters of 200 kph or 124 mph on cars).
DLS,
Two wrongs don’t make a right. If ending one bad law causes unscrupulous bureaucrats to enact ten bad laws in its place, it doesn’t change the fact that the original bad law was a bad law.
This entire debate has focused on the hypothetical bad outcomes that might occur by ending the War on Drugs without much acknowledgement of the very real bad outcomes that are known to have occurred because of the War on Drugs.
[Open note on others' behalf]
Somebody, one book you might like to find and read someday is “The Phoenix Solution” (a book claiming solutions to our drug problem). It is very authoritarian and it advocates measures I doubt you might accept, it goes that far (invading Colombia or other nations, capturing drug kingpins, and trying them in the USA to end the cocaine wave; strictly controlling all wire transfers abroad). Interestingly in that book, the author, against the libertarian (little L) approach to drug reform, describes the libertarian position in a manner, if I recall, that makes an excellent argument in favor of reform in the direction of decriminalization or legalization. Seriously. He also has arguments throughout the book that describe the neglect of addressing the costs of drug use and abuse as naivete (when not hedonism). It’s a book worth reading no matter how extreme you [or any other reader] may believe the author is on this subject. (Not panicking = intellectual maturity) Here. It’s cheap or you can find it in a library.
“Drug legalization is, in fact, given a very favorable examination in 26 pages. Bugliosi urges, ‘One step in the right direction toward a more open and intelligent dialogue on the legalization question would be the presidential appointment of a panel of distinguished Americans from outside of the government … to study the feasibility of legalization, or at least, as recommended herein, the experimentation with it by way of nonenforcement of drug laws for a period of time. Someone of the unimpeachable stature and credibility of an Elliot Richardson or (if it hadn’t been for the position he’s already publicly taken) a George Shultz should chair the panel.’” (here)
Just as Robert Bork is correct and honest about legislating morality (Yes, we do; “Indeed, we legislate little else”), so is Bugliosi correct largely about the Drug War:
“Vincent Bugliosi observes, ‘By making the use of drugs a crime, the anomaly is created of the perpetrator and victim of the crime being one and the same person.’ Immense treasure and police power are thus paternalistically deployed to smash a personal indulgence. Bugliosi concludes, ‘[T]he only rationale for making the use of drugs illegal is that we want to protect people from themselves.’”
(here)
(Note that that includes what they do to others, too, because of decisions they make for themselves.)
Nic Rivera:
I’m not saying the original law was a bad law, and you are incorrect if you conclude or state that I am saying that. More to the point regarding your initial expression, I have never taken the position in favor of choosing the status quo. I have advocated drug reform numerous times in fact.
No, it hasn’t. I’ve named several things about the current Drug War that are bad and that I would end or correct. But what must accompany that is the recognition that the result will not be a panacea or in any way ideal, and that there will be new and larger costs associated with the benefits of removal of what is bad or wrong currently. Denial of those real costs doesn’t make the pro-reform case look as good as otherwise should. I am not in denial of that. Many more people avoid illegal drugs than avoided alcohol during Prohibition; along with greater use and abuse by those already handling these other drugs, more people would try, use, and abuse them if they were legalized. We who advocate reform need to be realistic and to address these when making our suggestions for reform.
K. Ritter:
I made sure I responded to this elsewhere (in your other statement). Alcoholism is not a victimless crime! (I’ve seen the results with some people I know, first-hand.)
Somebody:
Cirrhosis cases are bad enough, and we have enough people suffering from kidney failure as it is (many who don’t yet know it) from high blood pressure (aggravated by alcohol) and diabetes — and with legalization of heroin we’d see an increase in kidney failure from heroin nephropathy (how many people know heroin abuse can destroy your kidneys?). That’s something to consider before deciding to legalize heroin or regulate its use.
Bars already can install blood alcohol level detectors. If we wanted to be funny, we could imagine that these detectors could issue printed slips with the test results. The results could be submitted to the bartender to get another drink — and the results would have to be below a certain limit to get that next drink.
(Why not dispense with the bartender and just have blood-alcohol-level-controlled drink dispensing machines? Zoo or circus animals trained to operate the machines for their rewards, heh, heh.)
As are bloggers and commenters.
Just sayin’.
Well, consumption of unsafe alcohol (methanol or poisoned ethanol), as well as consumption of (safe) alcohol in a less safe environment, perhaps. Regular (safe) alcohol consumption actually was reduced; cirrhosis was reduced by 10-20 per cent.
(No, this is not intended as an argument for restoring Prohibition. Alcohol use is a well-established cultural and historical behavior in this country. Post-1960s, marijuana may qualify for legalization on this basis on scope of use among the population and its relatively less harmful effects as compared to other illicit drugs.)
Like who? Anybody you know?
On that note, I yield the floor. Have a good weekend.
Jason,
Actually, I was thinking the same thing myself, particularly when Somebody brought up the possibility of coke being laced with dangerous chemicals in a world without the War on Drugs. Apparently, Somebody doesn’t realize that this is a fairly common occurrence today with the War on Drugs.
I would argue that the possibility of coke being laced with dangerous chemicals would be lessened–not increased–with the legalization of drugs. Under our current system, the selling of drugs exists within a black market in which drug dealers have little incentive to ensure that their drugs are clean.
Conversely, if drugs were sold at your local Rite-Aid, the owners of the store would have a tremendous incentive to ensure that their drugs are not laced with dangerous chemicals. In a free market, drug stores that sell drugs laced with hazardous chemicals would suffer plenty of bad press and quickly go under. In a black market, drug dealers suffer no similar adverse consequences.
Also, our War on Drugs has let a bunch of amateurs to try to concoct their own drugs out of makeshift labs–whether its freebasing cocaine or making methamphetamines. Because these people are amateurs with no real backgrounds in chemical, they often produce impure drugs that have plenty of residual chemicals that were used to make the drugs.
It’s like you said, with regards to Alcohol Prohibition. Alcohol can be dangerous. But you don’t often see get lead poisoning from drinking alcohol the way you did with the moonshine that was made during prohibition.
If so, the next logical question is to ask: Do you favor a return to Alcohol Prohibition?
Let’s cut to the chase here. Are you a Prohibitionist?
No Im not advocating Prohibition. You asked a question. Is America better off without prohibition. My answer was no and why.
The entire point that you are missing in my argument is that Libertarians are OPPOSED to laws and increases in the size of government.
Look at the laws and the regulation and the increase in the size of the government as a result of Alcohol. The same will happen with the legalization of drugs.
Therefore for a libertarian to be against laws, rules, regulations and above all regulation in commerce and then to be in favor of legalizing drugs is in direct contridiction to what they believe at the heart of their political and social philosophy.
SMALLER AND LESS INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT.
Not gonna happen if you legalize drugs.
Somebody,
Who is this mythical libertarian you’re arguing against?
As far as my take, I think this is a pretty powerful statistic:
That’s just incredible and sad.
You know we are paying tons of money for those people to be in prison. So how many people here are against universal health care and the welfare state, but for this level of incarceration?
It is a serious error of logic to assert that prohibition is less intrusive than regulation.
Is a ban on abortion less intrusive than government regulations that mandate abortions take place in a sterile environment?
Is a ban on smoking less intrusive than regulations that prohibit sale of cigarettes to minors?
Is a ban on cars less intrusive than speed limits?
I must ask who are these people in prison. Lets just focus on the drug offenders.
Statistics from the Department of Justice.
* Among drug dependent or abusing prisoners, 40% of State and 49% of Federal inmates took part in drug abuse treatment or programs since admission to prison.
* Among both State and Federal prisoners, white inmates were at least 20 times more likely than black inmates to report recent methamphetamine use.
* Violent offenders in State prison (50%) were less likely than drug (72%) and property (64%) offenders to have used drugs in the month prior to their offense.
Statistics are fine but what do they mean?
Splain to me what people are in jail for drugs and WHY they should not be??
It is a serious error of logic to assert that prohibition is less intrusive than regulation.
Perhaps Jason. But it is no less an error to assume it will be less intrusive to legalize drugs and given the experiences of legalizing alcohol from prohibition I feel as if I have more supporting evidence to draw upon to conclude that it would be as not.
Is a ban on abortion less intrusive than government regulations that mandate abortions take place in a sterile environment?
That is moot to the conversation at hand which is about the Drug war and its abolition and the intended and unintended consequences of such an action. However look at pre roe v. wade as opposed to post roe v. wade and tell me there is not more regulation, more laws and more government intrusion into the private rights of women then before. Tell me there is not advocacy groups that are insuring the GOVERNMENT makes Abortions safe.
Is a ban on smoking less intrusive than regulations that prohibit sale of cigarettes to minors?
No Comment. Moot to the conversation.
The question always comes down to should a citizen be allowed to harm themselves through social behavior. I would agree that Yes they should have that right. However the minute that right starts infringing upon another persons right then the government will step in and legislate such activity because our government advocates for all citizens.
Legalizing drugs would have the same impact that ending prohibition had on America. There would be massive amounts of legislation and regulation.
This will do nothing but make our government bigger and more intrusive because now they are going to determine HOW you can take drugs and WHEN. Today they simply say….You can’t take drugs, you cant grow drugs, you cant sell drugs. PERIOD.
Again this goes to the point I am making about Libertarians. While commendable in wanting smaller and less intrusive government…….Legalizing drugs will not do that. Case in fact is simply to look at other social behaviors that have been legalized and the resultant Intrusiveness that transpires by our federal government because it then becomes demanded by NON LIBERTARIANS.
In a perfect world we could legalize drugs and have perfect personal responsibility. This is however not a perfect world and mankind unfortunately requires governmental oversight so that 300,000,000 people can all get along in one country.
None of the examples are “moot” because they all ask the same question — is regulation “more intrusive” than prohibition? Your argument about drug legalization is that it is. I think that’s ludicrously illogical.
Now, unless you can show that regulation of drugs would somehow be uniquely different than regulation of alcohol, firearms, cars, cigarettes, or anything else where there is are prohibition/regulation options, it’s going to be obvious to everyone that you are just ducking the core issue.
But Somebody, if you believe that American is better off with both illicit drugs and alcohol being illegal, why is it that you only support prohibition of the former and not the latter?
Your argument is inconsistent.
You have absolutely no facts to back up this claim.
It is an absolute FACT that the government spends more money now waging a War on Drugs than it did before the War on Drugs.
It is an absolute FACT that there are more federal agencies (i.e. the ONDCP, the DEA) with a War on Drugs than there were before the War on Drugs.
I just realized the problem:
You seem to believe that “intrusiveness” can be measured by counting the NUMBER of laws and regulations. Because a ban is theoretically a single regulation and because time, place, and manner regulations after legalization would be numerically greater, you conclude that regulation is more “intrusive” than prohibition.
That is, of course, not a valid measurement of intrusiveness. Your methodological error here is even worse than your ones on the immigration thread. Intrusiveness is a qualitative concept, not a quantitative one. That means that intrusiveness has to be measured by the overall degree of incursion by the government into personal lives, not by counting the number of regulations that might justify specific discrete actions.
That means that a single regulation that massively restricts individual freedom (a ban) is much LESS intrusive than a thousand regulations that only nibble at the edges of personal freedom (regulations about safety similar to speed limits for cars or purity regulations governing alcohol).
Somebody,
This is what annoys me. It’s not that you and I have an honest disagreement with me regarding the goverments role concerning drugs. It’s your ability to engage in Orwellian doublespeak.
The War on Drugs has expanded the size and scope of government.
The government spends more money on account of the War on Drugs.
It has more departments on account of the War on Drugs.
It has had to spend more money building prisons in order to keep pace with number of inmates that have skyrocketed on account of the War on Drugs.
Yet you argue that ending the War on Drugs will lead to bigger government.
If you take away the government’s power to wage the War on Drugs and cut funding for the War on Drugs, that is SHRINKING the size of government–not EXPANDING it.
Ahh Jason has turned this into a college debate rather then a discussion of the topic at hand. He continues to want to debate and score points while failing to address the core issue.
Is America safer and healthier with legalized drugs? Will the ultimate legalization of drugs result in less government intrusion and smaller government?
If so then point to the evidence and suggest to me compelling reasons why I should believe that drugs are just okay.
I offer my counter evidence that drugs are not okay and legalizing them is absurd.
Teenagers abuse a variety of drugs, legal and illegal.
*
Alcohol
*
Tobacco: Teens who smoke are three times more likely than nonsmokers to use alcohol, eight times more likely to use marijuana, and 22 times more likely to use cocaine. Smoking is associated with a host of other risky behaviors, such as fighting and engaging in unprotected sex.
*
Prescribed medications (such as Ritalin, Adderall, and OxyContin)
*
Inhalants: Known by such street names as huffing, sniffing and wanging, the dangerous habit of getting high by inhaling the fumes of common household products is estimated to claim the lives of more than a thousand children each year. Many other young people, including some first-time users, are left with serious respiratory problems and permanent brain damage.
*
Over-the-counter cough, cold, sleep, and diet medications (such as Coricidin)
*
Marijuana: About one half of the people in the United States have used marijuana, many are currently using it and some will require treatment for marijuana abuse and dependence.
*
Stimulants: The possible long-term effects include tolerance and dependence, violence and aggression, malnutrition due to suppression of appetite. Crack, a powerfully addictive stimulant, is the term used for a smokeable form of cocaine. In 1997, an estimated 1.5 million Americans, age 12 and older, were chronic cocaine users.
*
Club drugs: This term refers to drugs being used by teens and young adults at all-night dance parties such as “raves” or “trances,” dance clubs, and bars. MDMA (Ecstasy), GHB, Rohypnol (Rophies), ketamine, methamphetamine, and LSD are some of the club or party drugs gaining popularity. Because some club drugs are colorless, tasteless, and odorless, they can be added unobtrusively to beverages by individuals who want to intoxicate or sedate others. In recent years, there has been an increase in reports of club drugs used to commit sexual assaults.
*
Depressants: These are drugs used medicinally to relieve anxiety, irritability, tension. There is a high potential for abuse and, combined with alcohol, effects are heightened and risks are multiplied.
*
Heroin: Several sources indicate an increase in new, young users across the country who are being lured by inexpensive, high-purity heroin that can be sniffed or smoked instead of injected. Heroin has also been appearing in more affluent communities.
*
Steroids: Anabolic steroids are a group of powerful compounds closely related to the male sex hormone testosterone. From 1998 to 1999, there was a significant increase in anabolic steroid abuse among middle-schoolers.
The use of illegal drugs is increasing, especially among young teens. The average age of first marijuana use is 14, and alcohol use can start before age 12. The use of marijuana and alcohol in high school has become common.
Drug use is associated with a variety of negative consequences, including increased risk of serious drug use later in life, school failure, and poor judgment which may put teens at risk for accidents, violence, unplanned and unsafe sex, and suicide.
Warning Signs of Teen Substance Abuse
Physical
*
fatigue
*
repeated health complaints
*
red and glazed eyes
*
lasting cough
Emotional
*
personality change
*
sudden mood changes
*
irritability
*
irresponsible behavior
*
low self-esteem
*
poor judgment
*
depression
*
general lack of interest
Family
*
starting arguments
*
negative attitude
*
breaking rules
*
withdrawing from family
*
secretiveness
School
*
decreased interest
*
negative attitude
*
drop in grades
*
many absences
*
truancy
*
discipline problems
Social problems
*
new friends who make poor decisions and are not interested in school or family activities
*
problems with the law
*
changes to less conventional styles in dress and music
Some of the warning signs listed above can also be signs of other problems. Parents may recognize signs of trouble but should not be expected to make the diagnosis.
Consulting a physician to rule out physical causes of the warning signs is a good first step. This should often be followed or accompanied by a comprehensive evaluation by a psychiatrist or mental health professional.
Substance Abuse Treatment
Parents can help through early education about drugs, open communication, good role modeling, and early recognition if problems are developing. If there is any suspicion that there is a problem, parents must find the most appropriate intervention for their child.
The decision to get treatment for a child or adolescent is serious. Parents are encouraged to seek consultation from a mental health professional when making decisions about substance abuse treatment for children or adolescents.
Parents and families must be informed consumers and should be involved in their child’s recovery. Here are some important things to consider:
No single treatment is appropriate for all teens.
It is important to match treatment settings, interventions, and services to each individual’s particular problems and needs. This is critical to his or her ultimate success in returning to healthy functioning in the family, school, and society.
Effective treatment must attend to the multiple needs of the individual — not just the drug use.
Any associated medical, psychological, social, and cognitive problem must be be addressed.
Remaining in treatment for an adequate period of time is critical for treatment effectiveness and positive change.
Each person is different and the amount of time in treatment will depend on his or her problems and needs. Research shows that for most individuals, the beginning of improvement begins at about 3 months into treatment. After this time, there is usually further progress toward recovery. Length of stay in a residential program can range from 8 to 18 months, depending upon the individual’s willingness and commitment.
Counseling (individual and/or group) and other behavioral therapies are critical components of effective treatment.
In therapy, teens look at issues of motivation, build skills to resist drug use, replace drug-using activities with constructive and rewarding behaviors, and improve problem-solving skills. Behavioral therapy also facilitates interpersonal relationships and the teen’s ability to function in the home and community.
Addicted or drug-abusing individuals with coexisting mental disorders should have both disorders treated in an integrated way.
Because addictive disorders and mental disorders often occur in the same individual, individuals should be assessed and treated for the co-occurrence of the other type of disorder.
Medical detoxification is only the first stage of addiction treatment and by itself does little to change long-term drug use.
Medical detoxification safely manages the acute physical symptoms of withdrawal associated with stopping drug use. While detoxification alone is rarely sufficient to help addicts achieve long-term abstinence, for some individuals it is a strongly indicated precursor to effective drug addiction treatment.
Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective.
Strong motivation can facilitate the treatment process. Sanctions or enticements in the family, school setting, or juvenile justice system can increase significantly both treatment entry and retention rates and the success of drug treatment interventions.
Recovery from addiction can be a long-term process and frequently requires multiple episodes of treatment.
As with other chronic illnesses, relapses to drug use can occur during or after successful treatment episodes. Addicted individuals may require prolonged treatment and multiple episodes of treatment to achieve long-term abstinence and fully restored functioning. Participation in self-help support programs during and following treatment often is helpful in maintaining abstinence. Parents should ask what aftercare treatment services are available for continued or future treatment.
Information provided by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and the National Institute of Drug Abuse.
You seem to believe that “intrusiveness†can be measured by counting the NUMBER of laws and regulations. Because a ban is theoretically a single regulation and because time, place, and manner regulations after legalization would be numerically greater, you conclude that regulation is more “intrusive†than prohibition.
That is, of course, not a valid measurement of intrusiveness. Your methodological error here is even worse than your ones on the immigration thread. Intrusiveness is a qualitative concept, not a quantitative one. That means that intrusiveness has to be measured by the overall degree of incursion by the government into personal lives, not by counting the number of regulations that might justify specific discrete actions.
That means that a single regulation that massively restricts individual freedom (a ban) is much LESS intrusive than a thousand regulations that only nibble at the edges of personal freedom (regulations about safety similar to speed limits for cars or purity regulations governing alcohol).
I define Intrusiveness as the manner in which the federal government uses to force itself into its citizens lives thru rules, laws and regulations.
While a ban on drugs is certainly intrusive to some. One would have to guess how many would actually partake of drugs if legalized. In contrast making one law that related to legalization of drugs would intrude on far more people.
As a trained economist I am more comfortable with numbers.
So let me throw a number at you which certainly is speculation on my part. Right now 10,000,000 do drugs in America. 290,000,000 Do not.
The ban on drugs is intrusive to 10,000,000 people.
Now for the sake of argument we legalize drugs then we can assume that 10,000,000 people who do drugs now certainly would take advantage of that. But because drugs are now legal then we most likely will have ONE more person who partakes of legal drugs.
Thus as you can see the legalization of drugs has effected one single MORE person then before which by its nature makes the Government regulation and legislation of legalized drugs MORE INTRUSIVE. Because now 10,000,001 are being affected by the governments intrusive practices of regulating drugs.
Since you conceal your identity (while trying to use others’ against them), it is not possible to lend credence to your claims of training or authority. Accordingly, let’s stick to analyzing the problems with your reasoning.
Even assuming that you can claim to know how many people use drugs (very questionable claim, since you offer as always zero evidence for your claims), you assume that “intrusiveness” under a condition of a ban on drug use is only experienced by those who use drugs in violation of the ban. But because they ban is enforced by using drug tests on tens of millions of additional people, intrusiveness under the ban is experienced at a VERY significant level both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Additionally, I would maintain the argument that your quantitative approach is absurd. Intrusiveness is an intrinsically qualitative concept. If a person “intrudes” into a house by merely sticking a foot in the door, that “intrusion” is much less significant than if a person intrudes by knocking down the front door and the door to your bedroom. By analogy, a ban is much more intrusive than regulation because the ban empowers much broader and more intrusive forms of enforcement than regulations do.
What is important is the issues. I just said as a trained economist….You know.. I can balance my check book.
LOL…and I even said this in the quote you quoted…..Let me throw a number at you which is certainly speculation on my part…..Meaning Im just throwing out a fictional number at you.
I would disagree with your assessment totally. If you stick your foot in the door that is ONE step. If you beat on the door and charge through it and run around the house then that is certainly more then one step. While quantitatively that might be translated as one incident if you do it many times that is not one incident repeated because each experience by individual human beings is different and assimilated in different ways.
Therefore even the quality you give to your version of Intrusive is measured in steps and methodology and effect and not purely in a single event that takes on a meaning of its own as it is repeated over and over.
So that being said if the government intrudes on the ENTIRE population of America by legalizing drugs and assuming they do not want Crack addicts working on the space shuttle or operating on my Brain (Which after this discussion and being spanked severely by a truly marvelous debater)might need it, then we can assume that the government will be much more intrusive because I would dare to say that even more people would be forced into drug testing because of the legality of Drugs.
Is this not a numerical intrusiveness? More people are being forced into drug testing as a result of legalizing drugs would not be qualitative but in fact be quantitative.
I cannot agree that your one law that strikes down the liberty of doing drugs for 10,000,000 would be any less intrusive in Americans lives then would a 1000 laws that intrudes into the lives of of the other 290,000,000 Americans telling them how they can and cannot act as a result of legalizing drugs.
I do not buy your qualitative approach to intrusiveness in this incidence and as a whole I find it alarming and as a trained Psychologist I would have a hard time justifying how being blown up once would have equal significance to being blown up multiple times. They are both intrusive episodes in ones life that merit attention.
I have great worries about us as a species when we can not even communicate.
I guess this is the downside to “democracy.” You can’t guarantee that the person with an idea has any rational understanding of his idea. Yet the alternative is always so much worse.
I hope for rational laws. But reading this thread has taught me that ignorance is very loud and oft-repeated.
Ugh.
You know, I don’t think anybody (except just maybe Ron Paul, and I even think he is more sensible than that) thinks that “legalizing drugs” means taking all the anti-drug laws off the books and letting preschoolers shoot heroin. That would be, oh I don’t know, a strawman made of pure red herrings.
I think most sensible people who have thought about the issue for more than about a minute and a half realize that some drugs should probably not be legalized at all, some should probably be legal for use in a hospital under medical supervision, and others should probably be subject to the same sort of laws that now apply to alcohol and tobacco. For example, perhaps a package of joints would have a THC content and a tax stamp on the label, and be kept behind the counter at stores that sell booze or cigarettes, available for purchase to people over 21; Buying it for a kid would still be illegal, selling it without a license would be illegal.
But hey, back to the argument. Light the strawman on fire and make smoked red herrings!
Somebody needs to quit talking loud and actually say something.
Its always interesting how those who are opposed to legalizing drugs are unenlightened and ignorant and cant reason and are building strawmans etc…etc.
I actually think I am quite intelligent and I actually think that if someone could convince me to legalize pot that I might be willing to look at it.
But to just throw out a blanket statement………End the war on drugs………..
That invites debate does it not?
Another strawman argument, Somebody.
I never once said that doing drugs is “okay.”
In fact, not a single person in the comment thread has said that doing drugs is “okay.”
The vast majority of libertarians that I have met have never argued that doing drugs is “okay.”
What you don’t seem to understand (or are unwilling to concede) is that arguing that the government should not criminalize an activity is NOT the same thing as condoning an activity.
I don’t think smoking cigarettes should be illegal, but that doesn’t mean that I think doing so is “OK.”
I don’t think eating Big Macs for break, lunch, and dinner every day of the week should be illegal, but that doesn’t mean that I think doing so is “OK.”
I don’t think driving without a seat belt should be illegal, but that doesn’t mean that I think doing so is “OK.”
I don’t think having sex with mulitple sex partners without any form of protection should be illegal, but that doesn’t mean that I think doing so is “OK.”
I don’t think participating in Neo-Nazi rallies should be illegal, but that doesn’t mean that I think doing so is “OK.”
I could on and on and on, but I think (or hope) that you get the message by now. Arguing that the government should not criminalize an activity is NOT the same thing as condoning an activity. And from this point forward, if you continue to argue that libertarians and proponents of drug legalization think doing drugs is “OK”, then you are deliberately building a strawman argument.
On a more serious note, me and my fellow Okayplayers were talking about this:
The Legal Drug business is the biggest hustle known to mankind
It’s sad that I should even have to say this, but not everyone who favors drug legalization is a druggie. In fact, many proponents of drug legalization abstain from drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) altogether.
You may even be surprised to learn that some of the most outspoken proponents of drug legalization are former drug enforcement officers who have had firsthand experience waging the War on Drugs.
“COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS: ASK ME WHYâ€
That’s the message that is emblazoned across the front and back of Howard Wooldridge’s shirt as he makes his way to speaking engagements across the country, sporting a cowboy hat and riding atop his horse. Mr. Wooldridge is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a non-profit organization made up of current and former police officers, DEA agents, judges, and prosecutors who oppose our government’s War on Drugs. It was founded in March of 2002 by Jack Cole, a 26-year veteran of the New Jersey State Police, and four other current and former ranking police officers.
Mr. Cole spent 12 years as an undercover narcotics officer, going after everything from petty drug users to billion-dollar drug trafficking organizations. During these twelve years, he witnessed first hand the failure of our government’s War on Drugs as well as the corrupting influence it has on law enforcement agents. Since then, he has become a passionate advocate of ending the War on Drugs and has spoken to colleges, radio audiences, police recruits, and veteran officers across the country.
According to its Mission Statement, LEAP’s objectives are as follows:
The mission of LEAP is to reduce the multitude of unintended harmful consequences resulting from fighting the war on drugs and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime, and addiction by ultimately ending drug prohibition.
LEAP’s goals are:
(1) To education the public, the media and policymakers about the failure of current drug policy by presenting a true picture of the history, causes and effects of drug use and the elevated crime rates more properly related to drug prohibition than to drug pharmacology.
(2) To restore the public’s respect for law enforcement, which has been greatly diminished by its involvement in imposing drug prohibition.
LEAP’s main strategy for accomplishing these goals is to create a constantly enlarging speakers bureau staffed with knowledgeable and articulate former drug warriors who describe the impact of current drug policies on: police/community relations; the safety of law enforcement officers and suspects; police corruption and misconduct; and the financial and human costs associated with current drug policies.
LEAP’s Board of Directions is comprised of the following members:
Jerry Cameron: Retired police chief of two Florida towns
Peter Christ: Retired police captain from Tonawanda, New York
Jack Cole: Retired lieutenant of the New Jersey State Police
John Gayder: Current member of the Niagara Falls Police Department in Ontario
Terry Nelson: Current Federal Agent in Border Patrol, US Customs and Homeland Security
Eleanor Schockett: Retired Florida Circuit Court Judge
Howard Wooldridge: Former road officer and police detective for DeWitt and Bath Townships in Michigan
In August of 2006, LEAP released a 13-minute promotional video to further insight into the organization’s perspective and role in drug reform. It can be found at LEAP’s website or streamed from the YouTube embed above.
NOTE: The above comment is taken from an article that was posted on my blog on January 16, 2007.
Your right Nick, it is sad that anyone wants to legalize something that destroys lives.
That is indeed sad.
First, something that has not been noted in a single one of the posts. Drug use does not always equal drug abuse. There are social drinkers. There are alcoholics. There are social pot smokers. There are stoners who smoke more pot than most cigarette smokers smoke cigarettes. It’s an interesting but unanswered question as to what other drugs this might apply to though I doubt those are the only two.
The “If government doesn’t ban it then it is condoning it.” argument is used on more than drugs. I’ve seen it applied to abortion, pornography and prostitution as well.
Quite a few years ago Sixty Minutes did a shocking piece on the lives of innocent people that had been destroyed by the War on Drugs and how cash and property is being seized and kept even after the person was cleared of all charges. It really pissed me off how cavalier the DEA and other law enforcement agencies were about perpetrating those injustices.
Somebody, are you aware of the signs and symptoms of drug war addiction?
1. Dependence – subject becomes so dependent on drug war that attempts to discontinue drug war abruptly lead to signs of withdrawal.
2. Tolerance – over time, larger doses of drug war are needed to achieve the same effect.
3. Compulsivity – subject feels compelled to continue drug war in spite of social, emotional, or physical problems related to drug war.
4. Mental status changes – subject shows signs of incoherent thinking, delirium
5. Uncontrolled spending - subject spends large somes of money to support his drug war habit–to the point of spending beyond his means.
6. Denial – subject denies that he has a drug war problem and becomes defensive or angered when subject is broached.
Do you have a drug war addiction problem, Somebody?
If so, there’s places you can turn to for help.
Do you have a drug war addiction problem, Somebody?
If so, there’s places you can turn to for help.
Yes I do Nick. I am very addicted to the drug war. I ask that my government protect me and my family from crack heads driving mindlessly.
I ask that they protect my grandchildren from going to a party and dropping acid and taking nose dives out of the second story window because they can fly.
I ask that my government act responsibly and keep the health risks in check as we watch the addiction that is documented. There is no such thing as Casual Heroine or Crack users. You take it your hooked. Even if you not…My brother in law has been given minutes, days or years to live because the Cocaine he did Destroyed his freaking heart!!!
Im sorry but you guys are head cases if you think Legalizing drugs is good for America. Some issues are just hard, they are tough but they have to be dealt with. Drug Use is not good for anyone……….Period. It destroys your health, it destroys you life and all Americans then are forced to pay for your stupidity.
I have an addiction to the drug war. I get up every morning and I check for the 6 signs to be sure they are in place. I read the AMA journal on how devestating drugs are to the human body, reaffirm my position and go to work content with the knowledge that I am right and YOU are wrong.
Because something is hard…….does not mean it should be abandoned. If so then fire the policemen and the firemen because its hard fighting fires and crime.
I would much prefer your grandchildren learn that lesson from their parents — the same parents who should be teaching them not to drink and smoke. Or, is acid somehow so much more tempting than alcohol and tobacco that, without large government anti-drug police action, your grandchildren would be unable to survive?
I ask that you provide evidence for such statements — preferably from medical journals that have studied the issue.
Eating too much chocolate makes girls fat and unattractive. It’s bad for their health, complexion, and self-esteem. I think we need a war on chocolate to fix this problem that is terrorizing so many otherwise cute girls.
Sadism doesn’t make you John Wayne, and it doesn’t make you right.
I cant wait for someone to answer back to that..espicially since im off 2morrow. I may not have juris lingo but i’ll annihilate you left and right wingers!!!!
mwsweeney,
Vulgar and abusive comments are not allowed under the comments policy posted below. Your comment has therefore been deleted.
My point about alchohol abuse is not to excuse it, just to point out that we prosecute alchoholism for its side effects —i.e. drunk driving, child abuse, spousal abuse, etc- not for drinking alone. I would agree that many drug users are not abusers, and can handle the effects of drugs the way that many people handle social or casual drinking.
If we legalize pot, for example, it could be regulated and taxed, and that would allow the cops to go after bigger offenses than possesion.
I ask that you provide evidence for such statements — preferably from medical journals that have studied the issue.
Yes my friend look about 16 posts up. I listed a study from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and the National Institute of Drug Abuse.
Cocaine is presently the most abused major stimulant in America. It has recently become the drug most frequently involved in emergency department visits. Relatively small use of Cocaine destroys your heart. It destroys the small blood vessels in your heart and renders your heart inefficient. Blood vessels collapse on themselves and lose their elasticity. The doctor can take one look at the echo and determine that you have been taking Cocaine.
Heroin. Soon after being administered, heroin crosses the blood-brain barrier. In the brain, heroin is converted to morphine and binds (attaches) rapidly to opioid receptors. Heroin is particularly addictive because it enters the brain so rapidly.
LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior as do cocaine, amphetamine, heroin, alcohol, and nicotine. However, like many of the addictive drugs, LSD produces tolerance, so some users who take the drug repeatedly must take progressively higher doses to achieve the state of intoxication that they had previously achieved. Physical changes involved? The physical effects include dilated pupils, higher body temperature, increased heart rate and blood pressure, sweating, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, dry mouth, and tremors. Again in the echo department many times we can see the side effects of extended LSD use as the drug interacts with the blood vessels creating elastic issues.
For some people, MDMA can be addictive. A survey of young adult and adolescent MDMA users found that 43 percent of those who reported ecstasy use met the accepted diagnostic criteria for dependence, as evidenced by continued use despite knowledge of physical or psychological harm, withdrawal effects, and tolerance (or diminished response), and 34 percent met the criteria for drug abuse. Almost 60 percent of people who use MDMA report withdrawal symptoms, including fatigue, loss of appetite, depressed feelings, and trouble concentrating.
I could go on and on and on. I would repeat again. Show me given the continual research by medical research on the health and mental effects that illicit drugs create that legalizing drugs in America is a good thing?
“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon and the other things. Not because it is easy but because it is hard.” JFK
He understood. I guess he was John Wayne huh??
I guess having said all I am going to say I will say one last thing which sums up my resistance to drug abuse in a nutshell that I believe cannot be overcome with any amount of pro drug spin.
Eating chocolate and becoming Fat does not impair your judgement to perform your civic duty, your work duties or impair your ability to drive.
Eating Big Macs till you drop does not impair your judgement in operating machinery and cutting off your fingers because you are high on cholesterol.
Being high on Cocain, Lsd, Mescaline, Heroine, Marijuana, Meth, Crack DOES
Therefore no case could ever be made to me that would change my mind about legalizing drugs.
I could be persuaded to do so with Marijuana because I do believe its medical effects and the mental capacity inhibitors are relative to Alcohol. With the proper regulation and oversight I would grant the legalization of Marijuana.
I cannot abide this blanket statement….End the war on drugs.
I wouldn’t object to legalizing marijuana, and treating it on the alcohol or tobacco model (for all I know those two models will converge someday), which are real-world examples set for us to follow.
Well, legalizing anything and everything (in the same way marijuana might be) is about as utopian as Prohibition.
What’s reasonable for the “Drug War” now is to end the parts now that are truly bad and wrong, beginning with civil asset forfeiture and continuing with unnecessary incarcerations (wasteful of prison resources and wrongly exposing the non-violent to risks in a violent environment), too-harsh sentences, etc.
I am doing a documentary called One Love Addiction©. I would love to get Mike Gravel’s views on some questions that I have. If he will grant me an interview for this. I feel confident that it will help people to better understand as I do exactly what he is saying. I agree with him 100% but I do fell like he is not getting the message out there. I understand that he must be very careful what he says but I don’t. I feel very passionate about ending this drug problem and I agree with Mike when he says that the solution is to attack the demand not the supply. Because as long as we are focused on the supply (75% of our “Drug War” funds go to The effort to attack the suppliers) Well what good does that do when the demand is being ignored and increasing daily. Everyone in this country knows that as long as there is a demand someone is gonna, “Get That Money”. One Love Addiction can help Mr. Gravels campaign a great deal… He said one thing that hurt him though. “If I’m elected”. I hate it when the candidates say this. Just the fact that they are presidential candidates gives them a voice and opens a door for them to make a difference. His efforts to do good should not be limited to his seat in the whitehouse. I’ve been in poverty my whole life and will humbly give it my best to improve humanity.
Hi, I’m Angela,
I am seeking to get some questions answered. I realize that some of the questions that I’m about to ask you are questions that you may not be able to answer but if you have someone that you can refer me to it would be great. I’m just trying to gather information to be put together for a documentary called One Love Addiction© in an effort to improve addiction recovery. Thank you for your time.
Here are the questions:
1. How much money was received in 2005 & 2006, from asset seizures in drug related crime arrests in the United States?
2. Why is media allowed to market depression and other illnesses to advertise legal drugs on national television? I.e., commercials that sell anti depressants and other drugs therefore encouraging the public to resort to drugs as a false sense of well-being?
3. What procedure took place to outlaw the television media from advertising the sale of tobacco?
4. Can we implement these procedures to outlaw the advertisement of Alcohol and other legal drug sales on national television?
5. What is the difference between legal and illegal drug sales?
6. What is the difference between legal and illegal drug use?
7. Why is it that when a town’s economy gets very poor, the drug stores flourish?
8. Why is it that when a town’s economy gets very poor, drug related crimes increase?
9. If everyone stopped illegal drug use, smoking and drinking alcohol and resorted to natural health care tomorrow, what would that do to our governments economy?
10. How much does our system rely on drug addicts and people staying sick?
11. Why are there so many strict laws that limit the practice of natural health care?
12. Did you know that, based on Alcoholics Anonymous World Services’ own statistics, Alcoholics Anonymous has only 5% retention rate and therefore is at a 95% failure? Given these facts, why is the government funding programs based on the 12 steps when there are other facilities that yield success rates from 30% to 90%? I.e. http://www.soberforever.org to name 1.
[...] Mike Gravel Vows to End the War on Drugs » The Moderate Voice … e the tax payers should pay for a state funded rehab for people with 3 or more drug … the cops call a cab for someone in a shopping center … I define Intrusiveness as the manner in which the … http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/2008-elections/13800/mike-gravel-vows-to-end-the-war-on-drugs/ [...]