American Taliban?
Dave Price
Yesterday's Going Green post provoked this insight from Dean's World commenter TimKindred:
Our entire outlook upon drugs is no different than that of the Taliban towards women. They want women clothed from head to foot, cap-a-pie, as it were, to prevent the men from lusting after the women. That completely removes the sense of personal responsibility from the equation. It says that men are by nature weal, and unable to control themselves when in the presence of a woman. That's bullsh!t and anyone with more than 2 brain cells understands that.It's probably always a mistake to limit everyone's freedom because some people supposedly can't be expected to manage their own lives responsibly.
However, we treat drugs in the same manner. We tell adults that they may NOT have them because they cannot be trusted to act responsibly.
It seems to me that the Burka is about how those societies view women should behave, at least as much as about what effect them not behaving in that way would have upon men. I disagree, but pretending a reason to draw a facile comparison isn't terribly useful.
Some people of course say that their is no responsible use of drugs, including marijuana. Once again, I disagree but avoiding the issue there won't convince anyone.
It is also I think sometimes appropriate to limit everyone's freedom because some people won't be responsible. For example, it might be the responsible thing for everyone to voluntarily contribute to national defense, but because some people won't do that we limit everyone's freedom and fund national defense out of mandatory taxes. Other numerous examples could be found, although they may not be obvious as they are fairly accepted and not too controversial.
Of course there should be some way to mitigate the collateral damage from that self-destruction.
Ryan
Ryan
True, which is why I added the qualifier "their own lives." Obviously we can't let people carry around their own tactical nukes.
The issue is the raw power that drugs have to destroy.
So does a hammer, or a truck, or sugar.
If we can do something to reduce that toll, I'm generally for it.
Sure, but the proposition that making drugs illegal creates less harm than than irresponsible people do with the drugs is an iffy one at best. For marijuana users, by far the greatest harm to users is done by the laws themselves.
What would these gangs be fighting over if we took away their drug turf by legalizing? How many less children and other innocent bystanders that are hit by stray bullets in gang infested neighborhoods would otherwise live and not have their lives destroyed?
Seems a child is killed at least once a week here in Chicago for doing nothing more than having the bad luck of living in a sh!t neighborhood.
How often when a child is molested and killed do we hear that the offender was out on parole and had a previous record of doing the same thing? How many violent criminals are neccessarily paroled because jails are too crowded with non-violent drug dealers?
If given the choice of having a violent offender or drug dealer on my neighborhood streets, I know which one I would choose.
These are the costs of criminalization that rarely enter the discussion.
I would posit two examples of why leagalisation is a better course than criminalisation.
1.) Prohibition. The criminalising of alcohol gave rise to the rum-runners and vicious gang wars of the 30's. The direct result of THAT was the rise of the FBI. Yes, there have always beed gangs and gang wars over turf. Numbers, drugs, protection, etc. However, the prohibition era is famed mostly for well-known Gangsters, the FBI's "untouchables" the St. Valetine's Day Massacre, etc. Once alcohol was back on the shelves that level of violence slacked off a great deal.
2.) Firearms. There is a direct correlation between forearm ownership and violence. The more lax the gun laws are, the fewer gun crimes are comitted. Places like Boston, Washington DC and Philedelphia have some of the highest gun crime rates in the nation, and yet also have the most stringent gun laws on the books. In fact, the percapits gun homicide rate in Washington is higher than that of Bhagdad. Go figure, eh?
Are there some drugs that probably ought to be kept controlled? Absolutely. There are some firearms that are prohibited and others (machine guns) which require a Class III licence to own. You can get a machine gun, but it's a strict and thorough procedure to get one.
What I am saying is NOT that we surrender to unlimited drug availability, but that we stop the foolish "war on drugs" which spends hundreds of billions each year that could go to other projects, or be returned to the taxpayers. Legalise the production and sale of drugs in the same manner we use for alcohol and tobbaco, and collect the taxes off of it.
Heck, we could even grow marijuana on our large agricultural college's farms and let them find the best way to cultivate and process the stuff for the best blend, etc. It's not like colleges aren't familiar with the weed now, is it?
Seriously, it's time this nation had a serious heart to heart talk with itself about just what we are doing regarding drugs, because the current model is not working and is simply hemmoraging money.
Respects,
Also, I don't value anybody's opinion on this issue who is younger than 30. In fact, it's the old timers whose opinions I truly value. For example, those that knew the black ghettos before crack arrived, and have seen people get addicted to it, and what it does to people.
We've (America) been down this road before. I'm well over 50, and I'm old enough to know that even before crack showed up, heroin was king of the neighborhood. Reefer was sort of tolerated, especially around places like Harlem and on Broadway where lots of musicians and actors, other entertainer types lived and worked. Heroin was also quite well known, but it was "that drug" the one that school counselors ratlled on against, and that the police and ministers railed against, and that most folks knew was being used but just didn't talk about.
The problem with associating crack with declining areas like Harlem, and "black ghettos" is that many of those areas were already far down the decline path before crack showed up. Crack was what more or lessed pushed a lot of those neighborhoods over the edge, I'll grant you that.
Nowadays, though, we've also got "redneck heroin" crystal meth all over the place. In many places it's pushed crack out of the way, because it can be made locally and requires no importers, as it were.
I don't have all the answers. I wish i had even SOME of the answers. I do know, however, that our current battle plan isn't working. All it's doing is empoweing the gangs and cartels that import it, making them more paranoid about protecting their assets, as well as greedy and very dangerous to everyone around them.
To my mind's eye, the best way to kneecap the gangs and cartels is to cut them off at the knees by legalizing the products.
I am, however, open to other suggestions.
Respects,
In fact, I would argue that it caused more damage. When crack came on the scene it became so profitable to sell that gangs began intense fighting to control the turf to sell it on. How many innocents were hit by stray bullets in these gang wars? How many two bit non violent dealers were sent to jail, making less room for real violent offenders? How many neighborhoods were ravaged because they were at the mercy of gang control?
How much has all of this war on drugs cost? And to what benefit? By your own admission, these neighborhoods were still torn apart.
Yes, I have seen plenty of people ruined by drugs, and I also see an innocent child hit by a stray bullet in seedy neighborhoods at least once a week. Legalize the drug trade and much of this goes away. I certainly wouldn't see how it would make drugs more available than they already are. When I was under 21 it was easier to get drugs than alcohol and give me 24 hours and I could get my hands on just about anything.
(btw, I am exactly 30 and I've lived in Chicago my whole life. Is my opinion more valid now?)
I'm with ya on that one. However, I think widespread use of the death penalty would do a decent job of wiping out the gangbangers. In california, the prisons are full because of our 3 strikes law, and it's so expensive to execute people that life in prison is often given instead of death, for financial reasons.
Paul: I'm not exactly disagreeing with what you say. What I am disagreeing with is the assumption that people will be responsible when they can buy crack from a convenience store.
I think the death penalty for gangbangers and meth/crack/heroin/cocaine dealers, legalization &extreme taxing of marijuana, and a massive injection of that tax money into 'scared straight' type of education in elementary and jr. high schools is the best bet. But the idea of allowing people to buy meth/crack/heroin is a horrible idea, because they will murder and steal to get the money to legally buy the drug.
I wonder if anybody has done a study on the idea of giving an addict their fix, and in return they agree to be voluntarily committed for 90 days in a rehab program. I'm sure it wouldn't be legal to hold them, but I wonder if somebody was so desperate to get their fix (because there's not many dealers because of the death penalty) that they'd accept the deal. Of course every addict thinks they'll quit tomorrow, so getting a fix and being unable to get high would be a good start.
There is no easy solution, I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that what we do now isn't the best, but I don't think legalization is the answer.
"By your own admission, these neighborhoods were still torn apart. "
Yes, because a majority of those people are simply losers. Sober or high, they are in the ghetto for a reason.
I say the death penalty needs to be used more, even though they make mistakes. If there's a genuine question about the proof, then life in prison + the appeals process. Join a known gang, commit a violent crime, you die. Import coke/heroin/meth you die. Run a meth lab, you die. Won't happen though, because of bleeding heart liberals who think those people are victims or that they have a disease. Well, show me that they were forced to do the drugs and I'll feel sorry for them, otherwise I say exterminate them. It will have a darwinian benefit if we can get them young enough before they have kids.
The second is about our drug control laws.
The first is a non-starter. All sorts of criminal laws restrict freedom because... Exactly who believes people should be free to generate nerve gas at home? Or stockpile explosives however and wherever they wish? Or that twelve year olds should be able to buy liquor?
The simple fact is that free speech is not always lawful, nor can the religious do anything whatever in the name of their God. Even our homes can be searched without a warrant under a few conditions.
The second topic - drug laws - is at least worth a debate. IMO solutions (there will be more than one) will come from science within a decade. I doubt the law can settle the matter. And the science could prove worse than the law.
Cigarettes kill millions.
All sorts of criminal laws restrict freedom because...
Freedom to manage your own life is different than freedom to harm someone else. I don't think people should use drugs, but if they do it responsibly it doesn't hurt me.
Yes, in fact maintenance programs have been quite successful.
See, this is what people don't understand about the drug problem: most of these people jhave a serious problem because their drug is so difficult to get.
Imagine tomorrow food is suddenly exorbitantly expensive. Your brain tells you you need it to live, so you'll commit crimes to get it.
Here's a tidbit from Answers.
One example is Dr. William Stewart Halsted, who is known as the "father of modern surgery". He invented most of the basic techniques of modern surgery while he was an addict.
...
Prior to 1914, heroin was entirely legal. Heroin, morphine, and cocaine were included in common patent medicines and freely available to anyone who wanted to purchase them, including children. Prior to 1906 there were no requirements to even list the contents on the label so people didn't even know what they were taking.
Even under those conditions, we did not have most of the health and crime problems associated with heroin that we see today. Addicts did not commit crimes to support their habit, and they generally did not suffer major ill health effects from their addiction. The most typical addict at the time was a rural-living white female — the farm mother.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.