The Flies In The Drug Legalization Ointment
With the percieved failure of the War on Drugs, lots of brain cells are being taxed to find an alternative to remedy the problems of drug use. The most insidious proposal, and I believe the most wrong, is just walking away and legalizing drugs. Here’s a typical roundup of the suggested benefits:
The legalization of drugs would prevent our civil liberties from being threatened any further, it would reduce crime rates, reverse the potency effect, improve the quality of life in the inner cities, prevent the spread of disease, save the taxpayer money, and generally benefit both individuals and the community as a whole.
…
Drug dealers are a thing of the past. Violent crimes and theft are greatly reduced. Drug-related shoot-outs are unheard of. The streets of America begin to “clean up.” Communities pull themselves together. Youths and adults once involved in crime rings are forced to seek legitimate work.
So for those of you that are in favor of legalization, I have some questions. As anyone who paid attention in history class knows, organized crime in America really took off trading in alcohol during prohibition. Did the mobsters just disappear when prohibition was ended? I’d say no. Organized crime is made up of people willing to do anything to accumulate power and wealth, and to suggest they will just disappear with the legalization of drugs is foolish. For every drug that is legalized, the criminals will be working hard to come up with new drugs to traffic or looking for other criminal enterprises to feed their greed.
Other Places You Can Read Me
June 22nd, 2009 at 19:18
They didn’t “just disappear,” no, but America doesn’t have the same level of organized crime anymore, does it? Drugs are the financial lifeblood of most of these gangs, and while legalization won’t be an immediate killing blow, I think it’s a blow nonetheless. I envision a spike in violence when legalization comes into force, as they fight for the new means of earning money, but I don’t think the new markets will b as large, many groups will die out, and I expect that in the end organized gang violence will settle beneath its current levels.
Maybe more importantly, drugs are the only exportable black mass-market item I can think of (perhaps later commenters can expand upon my lack of imagination, though). This means that the financing from drugs would be much harder to replace for the originators in 3rd-world countries than for the crime rings/gangs here in the US. For example, the Taliban derives a large portion of their finances from opium poppies. Take that away, and what can they replace it with? Other mob schemes like gambling, prostitution, or protection rackets, are “services” and must be sold to locals, and in Afghanistan, the locals simply can’t be squeezed into giving up as much wealth as can be earned from selling to the 1st world. They won’t just disappear either, but again, why hold back a blow simply because it’s not lethal?
Finally, I have one last slightly-fallacious but still somewhat relevant point: what would you suggest instead? Do you think that we can solve the drug problem with our current strategy? This is not rhetorical! We’ve had some successes interdicting certain routes, and although I don’t believe such a trade-open economy as ours can ever completely stop smuggling, maybe you do. But if you agree that the current strategy is a failure, what is the middle ground?
June 23rd, 2009 at 14:01
First of all, the concepts behind why all substances should be legal is economic and ideological.
Whenever there is a high enough demand, there will be a supply. In the case of drugs, whether it be ones safer than Advil such as cannabis or ones more dangerous than Advil, such as opioid-based heroin, the demand is high. However, unlike Advil, where there is a vast supply which keeps prices low, the supply for illicit recreational drugs is limited. Since the market is a seller’s market with high profit margins and inelastic demand, there is high incentive for people to enter this form of entrepreneurship. Also, it does not matter how many people the Mexican and American governments arrest for distribution, trafficking, sales or growing. Why? Because until the illicit drug business becomes a legal market to operate in, there will always be the potential to make large sums of money for selling or growing relatively small amounts of drugs. Comparatively, you can brew all of the beer you want, but unless you sell it at a price lower than your legal competitors, you will not be able to make money. And even if you do, the profit will be relatively low since, unlike the black market, the seller can’t set their own price.As long as you can make more money doing that than you can working in the fields in Mexico or at a minimum wage job in the US, there will always be people willing to take the job.
As you can see from the above, the government’s attempt at prohibition and stopping certain behavior is also an attempt to defeat the economic laws of supply and demand. Where there’s a demand, there will be a supply.
Also from an economic standpoint is the massive amounts of money spent to pay for the drug prohibition. Ask yourself why is it that the government is willing to spend almost $100 billion on domestic operations alone on prohibition, not counting all of the aid that is sent to Mexico to ensure that the Mexican government tows the American government’s line? Mainly because those in power stand to make a lot of money from it. Not only are drug cartels making money through the roof for reasons explained early, but judges, defense attorneys, jail guards, probation officers prosecutors and cops are all making out like bandits. Nobody in the community profits from stopping person x from doing a line of coke. However, if that person is arrested, the cop is given credit for the arrest and may help him toward a promotion. The suspect has to pay a defense attorney for the case. Then, due to so many victimless drug crimes being prosecuted, the taxpayers have to foot the bill for an assistant DA or two, or maybe even overtime pay for the original DA. Also the DA does his best to get the conviction since that’s what helps him look good, not necessarily ensuring that justice is served. Then an extra judge is hired since there are so many drug cases on the docket. Another government job that creates no taxable output since all of the judge’s pay, as well as everyone else I have mentioned, is already coming from taxpayers. Then either a probation officer gets work for keeping tabs on probationers or a jail guard gets work to house a prisoner. Then the politician can say how tough on crime he is. It’s one big machine that grinds up citizens at the expense of taxpayers and only benefits those who are a part of it.
Additionally, those who advocate a legalization of all drugs have an ideological moral high ground. How? By wanting criminalization, prohibitionists adhere to the theory that 1) the government has the final say of what you may put into your body and 2) it is okay to criminalize people for activities that involve no victim. Of course, many of the puritan values that this country has from centuries back are the large reason why alcohol at one time, and now other drugs, have been prohibited.
Is there other violent crime when drugs are involved? Yes. However, much of it is due to drugs being illegal. If I have cocaine and Joe Schmoe has some cocaine, and we are both looking to sell, both Joe and I will make more money if there is no competition. And since we are already breaking the law, there is little incentive for either of us to not break it a little more by taking the other out. On the other hand, the incentive would be very high to not use violence if selling the substance was legal.
Also, there is a lot of property crime and theft. Again, this is not because that getting high all of the sudden makes you want to steal. That’s absurd and I’m pretty sure no drug in the world has that specific side-effect. However, since black market items are artificially highly-priced, plants such as the coca plant, cannabis and opioids become expensive to purchase. Therefore, one needs to raise more funds to support the habit. Concurrently, you don’t see people addicted to nicotine breaking in to steal cigarettes very often. Why? Because they’re cheap, and if legalized, all of the plant-based drugs would be cheap as well since you can’t patent a plant and many firms would be mass-producing these plants to sell. Again, the higher the supply and competition, the lower the selling price. Although many people don’t like it, even the most hardcore anti-drug types would have to admit that somebody getting high isn’t as bad as the same person committing theft in order to satiate their need.
Finally, the term drug war is a poor way to word this current conflict of government nanny-statism vs individualism. From the way it’s currently being ran, it’s more of a war on drugs and anybody that has anything to do with the drugs.
It’s not about conservatism vs liberalism vs libertarianism or the GOP vs Democrats. It’s about authoritarianism vs those who value liberty and freedom of themselves and others. Remember, if you don’t buy that argument in favor of ‘for your own good policies’, don’t try to use the individualist argument when the government comes for your guns, alcohol, fatty foods or any other activities that some people may consider a vice.
Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.
June 23rd, 2009 at 14:11
The problem with this argument (which assumes they will move to other forms of crime or push other drugs) is that you can’t force demand up at will. You can’t say they will simply switch to selling more cocaine or heroin if marijuana is legalized because people do not want to use those drugs. Drug suppliers can (obviously) influence supply, but they can’t influence demand. People either want to buy their products or they don’t. And that’s not even going to be an issue because those drugs aren’t as easy to produce locally. Meth is a different case, although it can be manufactured more easily than other hard drugs, an increased supply still won’t mean an increase in demand.
As for them moving to other forms of crime, such as robbery, well there will be a lot more cops not wasting time arresting people for growing or possessing a PLANT, so I don’t think there will be much difficulty in catching them. And while taking a violent criminal like a rapist off the streets makes the streets safer, taking a drug dealer off the streets only creates a high paying, low skilled job opening.
Here’s a relevant article:
Netherlands to close prisons for lack of criminals
They practically legalized marijuana around the same time we launched the drug war. They’re closing prisons and we’re building more to house more than 24% of the world’s prisoners. Sadly, things like logic don’t seem to apply to discussion on marijuana, only whoever lies the loudest.
June 23rd, 2009 at 14:34
I was going to type something out but it seems the 3 above me did a very good job so I will say taking money away from criminals is always a good thing.
June 23rd, 2009 at 15:17
Well sure, it’s unethical, illogical, and outrageously expensive to jail adults for voluntarily doing something that’s not good for you, but if it won’t solve all our problems, why change what we’re doing?
June 23rd, 2009 at 15:56
You can’t say they will simply switch to selling more cocaine or heroin if marijuana is legalized because people do not want to use those drugs.
You can’t say this with certainty. Rises in use of marijuana and other drugs increased in the Netherlands when marijuana was legalized. No conclusive link has been proved or disproved to date, so why risk it until we have more evidence?
I envision a spike in violence when legalization comes into force, as they fight for the new means of earning money, but I don’t think the new markets will b as large, many groups will die out, and I expect that in the end organized gang violence will settle beneath its current levels.
If I recall correctly, the Netherlands and Switzerland experienced a significant increase in property crimes following legalization. So, instead of gangs fighting other gangs for drug turf, they’ll quite likely be breaking into your house, business or cars to steal your stuff. I think that’s not a trade most Americans are willing to make.
Maybe more importantly, drugs are the only exportable black mass-market item I can think of (perhaps later commenters can expand upon my lack of imagination, though).
Not having had to deal with some of this, your imagination is probably limited. There’s human trafficking (both for prostitution and illegal immigration), pirated software, pirated music, pirated movies and counterfeit goods from just about every major fashion label, just to name a few. Oh, and with the way taxes on tobacco are going, watch for the black market in cigarettes to expand.
As you can see from the above, the government’s attempt at prohibition and stopping certain behavior is also an attempt to defeat the economic laws of supply and demand. Where there’s a demand, there will be a supply.
Where there’s money and property, there’s robbery. Should we legalize robbery? Where there’s human beings, there are assaults and murders. Should we legalize murder? If we just legalize everything we could close all our prisons, too. Having seen the effects of abusing illegal drugs first hand, I don’t believe the potential social costs are acceptable.
Finally, I have one last slightly-fallacious but still somewhat relevant point: what would you suggest instead? Do you think that we can solve the drug problem with our current strategy? This is not rhetorical! We’ve had some successes interdicting certain routes, and although I don’t believe such a trade-open economy as ours can ever completely stop smuggling, maybe you do. But if you agree that the current strategy is a failure, what is the middle ground?
I don’t know what the answer is, but neither do I believe we should let the building burn because we can’t find a bucket.
June 23rd, 2009 at 16:18
Sailor says:
“for those of you that are in favor of legalization, I have some questions.”
OK…
“Did the mobsters just disappear when prohibition was ended?”
Nope… but they don’t deal in booze anymore do they? We don’t have shootouts between Coors and Anheiser Busch either, do we?
So Sailor, where are the other questions? That’s just one question. You said “some questions,” implying more than one.
While we’re waiting for more questions… here are some for you:
Do you know the history of our pot laws?
Do you know the stories behind these names?
Zeke Hernandez… Kathryn Johnston… Patrick Dorismond… Donald Scott… Jennifer Odom… Peter McWilliams… Charity Bowers…
As one who celebrates the red, white and blue, do you believe our laws should be based on fact, science and truth? or are you ok with laws based on lies and racist fiction?
What would you say if I told you that our government (under the banner of the NIH) conducted a study in Virginia in the 1970’s that showed cannabis actually fights cancer? And that they then buried the that study? A cancer fighter… and they bury the study…
The answers to these questions are what make an advocate for legalizing ALL drugs.
Oooh… and while I’m here… 2 more questions:
Are you familiar with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)?
Are you familiar with Switzerland’s HAT program?
June 23rd, 2009 at 17:06
You are just responding with any rhetorical point you can make off the material at hand. I think you aren’t looking at this logically but culturally.
“Should we legalize robbery?…murder?”
No; those crimes have, by their nature, victims. If A sells B a drug where’s the victim?
“Did the mobsters just disappear when prohibition was ended? I’d say no.”
No they didn’t disappear, but they did change. You don’t have to be a mob historian (just a movie fan) to know that the Young Turks took the outfit straight into big-time drug-dealing when the Alcohol Prohibition money-machine was turned off. They ran the entire French Connection. The Pizza Connection. Drugs saved the Mob. Take the trade from them now and they will be a rarity. They may still smuggle counterfeit goods, run protection, etc., but it’ll be tough sleddin’ with no snow and just because they may still engage in these activities does not mean we shouldn’t remove their main activity: drugs.
Prohibition’s boosters have had decades to make their idea work. It doesn’t; it makes it much worse. When Nixon proposed all this “War” baloney in the early Seventies there were a lotta people who said this stuff would happen. Highest prison-population in the world! Prisons going up like dandelions across the erstwhile Land Of The Free. Narco-States. Narco-Terrorism. Constitution gutted. “No,” said the Prohibitionists – the politicians reaping the easy votes from such shameless demagoguery – “We’ll make America Drug-Free in no time!” And they kept setting specific dates by which the country would be made drug-free. They made it the law. They failed, of course. They don’t talk about that anymore. In fact, it begs the question: Given their record of failure, why would anyone throw-in with them? Don’t tell me you bought all that ridiculous propaganda. Don’t be a Patsy.
You’re swimming against the tide and it’s getting strong. You’re throwing-in – historically-speaking, with all the bad misanthropic thinking of the past like Racism, Slavery, the Inquisition, Witch-trials, Nazism, Anti-Semitism, etc. Adherents of those ideas thought they were right at the time also. But those ideas all had one thing in common: they targeted certain classes of people who weren’t victimizing anyone.
Ending the Drug-War is the last great Civil-Rights fight yet to be won. It’s gonna happen. I would suggest you get on the winning side.
[YS Responds: I hope you're not suggesting we should ignore cultural values when making law. That would be just foolish were it even possible. Also, perhaps you can expand more in another comment on how prohibiting the possession of some intoxicants is the moral equal of slavery, racism and anti-semitism.]
June 23rd, 2009 at 17:11
Should we legalize murder? Duh.
In effect, keeping the non-toxic alternative to alcohol and tobacco illegal is tantamount to murder, given the effects both of the substances involved AND the black market riches the violent cartels enjoy.
To keep Cannabis illegal while tobacco and alcohol are dispensed freely is murderously stupid.
Google “Tashkin”.
Any questions?
Richard P Steeb, San Jose California
[YS Responds: I'm not against using marijuana or derivatives for medical purposes, so long as the proper research, evaluation and distribution controls are followed as with any other experimental drug. What I'm not in favor of is allowing the distribution of marijuana for medical purposes based on anecdotal evidence or collective sentiment.]
June 23rd, 2009 at 17:15
Rises in use of marijuana and other drugs increased in the Netherlands when marijuana was legalized.
Interesting. All of the data that I’ve seen shows that mj use rose temporarily after decriminalization, then began to decline- and in fact, continues to decline. Hard drug use has been steadily declining as well. The state of Alaska shows a similar trend.
If I recall correctly, the Netherlands and Switzerland experienced a significant increase in property crimes following legalization. So, instead of gangs fighting other gangs for drug turf, they’ll quite likely be breaking into your house, business or cars to steal your stuff. I think that’s not a trade most Americans are willing to make.
The gangs are already doing this- and the profit potential vs risk coupled with artificially inflated prices which are a result of the black market is providing the incentive.
There’s human trafficking (both for prostitution and illegal immigration), pirated software, pirated music, pirated movies and counterfeit goods from just about every major fashion label, just to name a few.
Of course. If someone can provide a product that consumers want at a lower price, they will beat out the competition. That’s how markets operate.
Oh, and with the way taxes on tobacco are going, watch for the black market in cigarettes to expand.
Canadians can attest to that. After their government instituted obscenely high tobacco taxes a few years ago, armed hijackings of trucks and related violence became so bad that they were forced to rescind the tax. (At least they had the good sense to recognize the problem and rectify the situation.)
Where there’s money and property, there’s robbery. Should we legalize robbery? Where there’s human beings, there are assaults and murders. Should we legalize murder? If we just legalize everything we could close all our prisons, too.
Irrelevant. Nice red herrings, though.
Having seen the effects of abusing illegal drugs first hand, I don’t believe the potential social costs are acceptable.
Having studied both the effects of drug use and abuse- and the detrimental effects of prohibitionist policy, I am absolutely certain that prohibition has done far more harm to our freedoms, health, and well-being than the drugs themselves have ever- or will ever- do.
[YS Responds: It's hard to accurately gauge what effect legalization had on demand in the Netherlands. After the first few coffee shops opened the number of shops swelled to 70-80. When usage and petty crimes spiked, localities imposed restrictions that cut the number of shops in half, so naturally usage and related crimes went down again. As for absolute demand, it's pretty darn hard to estimate for a product that is currently illegal. All you can estimate by current statistics is how many people are willing to break the law to use a drug in question.]
June 23rd, 2009 at 17:39
So, your argument is that since legalizing pot and/or other drugs won’t eliminate all gang related black market type crime, we should not do it all?
The risks you point out are probably better outcomes than exist today with prohibition. In today’s world you turn thousands if not millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals because the smoke pot. With legalization, law enforcement would not have to deal with these “criminals” but could instead focus on real criminals. Your argument that most drug dealers would turn to property crimes does not hold water. Dealing drugs is a low risk – high reward proposition. Property crime is not so former drug dealers would have much less incentive to go into property crime.
The War on Drugs is a horrible failure that has destroyed tens of thousands of families. Statistically, the same number of people that did drugs at the beginning of the drug war are doing drugs today. You simply cannot beat the laws of supply and demand. The war is unwinnable as approached today. Win the war by treating it as a medical problem. The majority of people who drugs do not get addicted, do not commit crimes to support their habits, pay their taxes and are otherwise law-abiding citizens. Let’s stop punishing random users to no effect. When the last three presidents have smoked pot, it is time to re-examine what we are doing and try a different approach.
[YS Responds: No, my argument is that displacing criminals from one criminal activity to another--so you can claim you "reduced crime"--is a weak argument for legalization.]
June 23rd, 2009 at 18:20
You can’t say this with certainty. Rises in use of marijuana and other drugs increased in the Netherlands when marijuana was legalized. No conclusive link has been proved or disproved to date, so why risk it until we have more evidence?
You made some good points, luckily I only need to respond to your response to me. Yes, cannabis use spiked, but then lowered to rates lower the the united states. I’ve seen stats before, but I don’t feel like going and finding them right now so I’ll just state my ones from memory: lower lifetime usage rates (ie people that have tried it). According to a dutch minister of health, “We’ve succeeded in making pot boring.” Separating the markets for soft and hard drugs (no one at the coffee shops would get away with selling them for long, although they are still easily available because prohibition doesn’t work).
Another good example to research is Portugal. They decriminalized all drugs back in 2001. “The data show(s) that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework as been a resounding success.”
I find it odd that the DEA has a page on their website about Spain’s decriminalization back when it first happened, but now refusing to comment on it: “A spokesperson for the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy declined to comment, citing the pending Senate confirmation of the office’s new director, former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.” Even after taking office, he couldn’t answer any about any basic policy questions. When it is written into the law that made their office to oppose drug legalization of any kind, it should not be a tough question to answer. Maybe they just don’t want to admit how well it worked, and how their strategy is a huge waste of money that doesn’t help solve the problem it is supposed to. If they cared for a second about drug abusers, they’d be for needle exchange programs. I thought drug abuse was a public health issue, why is it treated as a criminal one instead? The current strategy does not affect supply, does not affect demand, and spreads misinformation instead of facts.
Its legal status does not mean endorsement by the government. Why do some people think legalizing drugs would send the wrong message to the kids? Tobacco use has been discouraged through awareness programs without making it illegal. Is being honest the wrong message? People should be able to make the choice for themselves what they want to put into their body as long as it does not harm another person. When it begins to affect their job and family, that is abuse. A drug’s legal status should not be used to show that a drug cannot or cannot be used responsibly. I realize I’m not answering your questions anymore, but I really don’t see any upside to continuing the war on drugs. With prohibition, you make something that isn’t a crime an actual crime, and that creates real, violent criminals. With decriminalization, you still have criminals, but the users are left to an unregulated market. With legalization comes regulation, taxation, and treatment for only those who need it, while protecting the rights of those who choose to use drugs responsibly.
[YS Responds: The link to the story in Portugal was interesting and their solution is along the lines of what I would consider in the way of reforms. I do disagree with characterizing the Portugese effort as "decriminalization", because users are still punished--though in my opinion much more reasonably. Thanks for the link.]
June 23rd, 2009 at 19:17
Should we legalize robbery?…Should we legalize murder?
No. We should legalize drugs.
June 23rd, 2009 at 19:20
Yankee Sailor,
I want to see if I understand your argument and its implications.
Focus on marijuana for a moment. The reason you offer in your post for prohibition is not one of the usual ones, e.g., that marijuana is a gateway drug or that it increases the risk of lung cancer (neither of which seems likely to me but set that aside). Even if you accept one of these other arguments, the argument for prohibition in your post is that it keeps criminals busy. It’s like a make-work program for criminals, keeping them from committing really bad crimes — ones with clear victimes — like robbery.
For this argument, it doesn’t even matter if marijuana is really dangerous or unhealthy. The key point is to give bad people something to do that is less bad than other things they might do. And what better option is there than a crime with no real victim, but instead a happy buyer and a happy seller. Sure, the sellers sometimes fight over turf and things like that, but all the violence associated with the drug trade is preferable to all the violence that would occur without a drug trade. Because at least when they’re selling, the criminals are not robbing and killing.
Shouldn’t this mean that you wouldn’t want to “win” the drug war? You appear to assume the supply of criminals is independent of the drug laws. (”Did the mobsters just disappear when prohibition was ended?”) In other words, without the drug laws, we would have the same number of criminals. I think this is highly unlikely, but let’s assume it’s right. Winning the drug war would mean criminals have mostly stopped selling drugs. The drug scourge would be gone. But not the criminals. So what would the former drug dealers be doing?
Winning the drug war would mean the criminals turn to other, less desirable crimes. Like robbery. Winning the drug war therefore means losing the robbery war. So the status quo should seem pretty good. Maybe you would like some fine tuning — perhaps some way to entice non-participating criminals to turn to the drug trade and away from worse crimes — but for the most part, the present system should appeal to you. In a comment above, you said, “I don’t know what the answer is[.]” But the answer should be what we have now or something close to it.
Our drug war failure — or so we thought! — is actually success.
Right?
[YS Responds: I don't think keeping criminals busy with one criminal activity is a sound rationale for maintaining the status quo. I think "reducing the number of criminals" is a fundamentally unsound rationale for legalization. If Americans decide that a certain activity is harmful enough to society to be deemed criminal, how many people could potentially get punished is irrelevant.]
June 23rd, 2009 at 23:39
You believe the solution is more of the same. After 35 years drugs are stronger, more available, and in many cases cheaper. Violence is escalating around the world, Mexico being a prime example. The drug war has made a health issue into a huge criminal problem. We have over 2 million Americans in prison now, that is 6 times the world median. We have 5% of the worlds population with 25% of the worlds prisoners. Last year over 700,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana crimes, most were for possession. No one has ever died from an overdosed of Marijuana. Alcohol diseases killed 150,000 last year, tobacco 450,00, while marijuana is actually used to treat countless diseases. The article I included below shows one example of thousands of Americans killed by the marijuana warriors. Most of the people arrested for marijuana and many other drugs have jobs and pay taxes, they function well in society. After being convicted they can no longer find good jobs or contribute to society. What do think they will do to survive. Your actually creating more of the very criminals you are so concerned about. Give an American a good job and some hope and you will have less organized crime, it really is not that hard to understand. This is just one way the problem is made much worse. Education and treatment for those who need it and want it has been shown to work much better. The drugs have won the war do you want do something about it? You talk about history but do not seem able to learn yourself, your way has made it so much worse just look around. You do not have to approve of drug use, you obviously realize drugs are a problem, but you are stuck in a losing strategy that is more destructive to Americans and the country as a whole than the drugs. While going after marijuana the AG in Hawaii found that it was replaced by other drugs in particular methamphetamine, is that what you want. It seems to follow that making marijuana available and regulated would lower the use of truly destructive drugs, like meth.
Many of Yankee Sailors comments are just wrong. Junkies steal to get drugs, if they are treated by clinics they will not need hundreds of dollars a day to feed that habit. When people use drugs they are doing it to themselves. Yankee……when people rob someone or force another human into servitude they are committing a crime against another. Your comparison shows that you are grasping and really is not a valid point. Your finnal piont is absurd the building is burning and you are throwing gasoline on it, all you need to see this is look at the numbers. Sorry but it has and continues to get worse using your logic. Regulation can not be worse than what you propose and you offer no solution at all. The money made because of prohibition has caused corruption to creep into our police and judicial system as well. You have to take the money out, your way just makes it more dangerous and profitable
Houston police mum on marijuana prisoner’s death
By David Edwards and Stephen Webster
Published: June 23, 2009
A woman serving a short sentence in a Houston, Texas, jail for possession of marijuana died in custody over the weekend, and officers are not saying how or why.
The 29-year-old, identified as Theresa Anthony, had expected to spend just two and a half weeks behind bars in the Harris County lockup. On Saturday, Cynthia Prude, Theresa’s mother, received a phone call from the jail’s Chaplain informing her that her daughter was dead.
“I almost got in a wreck,” Prude told the local Fox affiliate. “I thought somebody was playing on the phone. I would like to know what happened to my daughter.”
Prude has not been allowed to see the body, nor has the Harris County Sheriff’s Department even spoken with her, according to area media.
“Today I still don’t know if that’s my daughter,” Prude told Houston news station KHOU. “I’m only going by a Social Security number that we got from Ben Taub Hospital.”
Houston’s Fox affiliate noted that an autopsy has not yet been conducted on Theresa’s body.
The Harris County Sheriff Department’s public information officer was not available to answer RAW STORY’s questions.
Not the first time
It is hardly the first time serious questions surrounded the death of a Harris County inmate.
On 4 June 2009, the Justice Department concluded a 15 months-long investigation into the Harris County facility and determined in the subsequent 27-page report that over 142 prisoners had died there since 2001. Most expired due to lack of medical care, the report claims.
The Associated Press noted that after the Justice Department declined to make its findings public, The Houston Chronicle was able to obtain a copy, which it released on the Internet.
The findings, addressed to Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, lauded the prison’s efforts to maintain security, booking and intake programs and take basic fire safety precautions. The Justice Department said that by these measures, the facility “complies with constitutional requirements in a number of significant respects.”
The Justice Department added that in spite of these marginal safety and procedural issues, “certain conditions at the jail violate the constitutional rights of detainees. Indeed, the number of inmate deaths related to inadequate medical care [...] is alarming.”
This video is from My Fox Houston, broadcast late Monday, June 22, 2009.
Download video via RawReplay.com
[YS Responds: I don't believe the solution is more of the same. While efforts to interdict the flow of drugs into America have shown successes (cartels don't shift shipping their goods by suitcase to low observable fast boats or semisubmersibles in response to ineffective efforts), efforts to reduce demand have produced lackluster results and need to be rethought. Also, while some law enforcement officers abuse their authority, it's not a valid reason to change a law, it's a reason to improve the screening, training and oversight of law enforcement officers.]
June 23rd, 2009 at 23:48
You’re right, so long as law and order exist crime and organized crime will exist. But that doesn’t mean that we as a “free” society should willingly support it. This ideology is founded on the principal of history before Prohibition, that before these things were illegal there were no big evil bad guys threatening our freedoms. Simply put these people have power over us because we have invested ourselves into a free economy of supply and demand. But there is no supply in our economy so the demand goes to someone who can fill it.
Will the violence go away? No, but Capone had built an empire off of illegal activities and had grown to sustain it by legal means as well as criminal. This country grew into what it is in part because of the tobacco industry, Lumber industry, and Steel industries among others. Just like our economy has evolved to with the growth of our industries (and it’s failure’s) organized crime will as well.
Every prohibitionist says to me “If we legalize marijuana then everybody will be smoking it, there would be hazes over our cities” and then later in the conversation when we get to talking about crime. “If you legalize pot then the criminals are just going to push other drugs to user’s even harder then before.” Both arguments are easy to debunk, together make less sense. To the first, if you are not going to include “yourself” with “everybody” then don’t say everybody, it’s misleading. There are plenty of prohibitionists out there that are not going to do any drugs if you legalize them. Second, if they could do that then they would be doing that now. Cocaine last I saw was reported to be worth more on the streets in certain forms then marijuana so if you could move more cocaine then you will make more profits. Supply and demand, you don’t buy a couch unless you plan to buy one and a sales person is not going to change your mind unless your thinking about it in the first place, why could a drug dealer do that and not a salesperson? Together their contradictory, people will do more of one or the other but not both.
June 24th, 2009 at 00:45
“Rises in use of marijuana and other drugs increased in the Netherlands when marijuana was legalized.”
Right. And you totally didn’t just make that up, either, even though the actual evidence says the opposite.
June 24th, 2009 at 02:39
I see you have been given the correct info on the Netherlands. Your reference to Switzerland goes back to Zurich’s “needle park.” Yes, they did experience that, over 15 years ago.
Now Switzerland utilizes the HAT program (Heroin Assisted Treatment). They’ve reduced drug related crime, they’ve improved health and employability and reduced addicts’ costs on the social system. Plus the average age of addicts is rising as heroin has lost it’s “rebel” chic. Now it’s a drug used by sick people and that, well, that just ain’t glam at all.
And besides, if Prohibition is so smoking hot, why hasn’t it succeeded. I like what Petere Christ from LEAP says… (paraphrasing) “look, god had one no-no in the garden, don’t eat from THAT tree. So, if god can’t enforce Prohibition, what makes us think we can do better?”
June 24th, 2009 at 03:29
Pot is different now. While in the 60’s the THC content was around 4 percent it now is 15-20 25 -even 30 percent. That is huge. The difference in the pot that was criminalized and the pot that we have today is night and day. Today’s pot is definitely bad for you. It is just too damn strong. It affects people’s judgement more, is detrimental to your health. Does that mean it should stay illegal? No, quite the contrary. If pot were legal one could buy pot that was 4 percent, 2 percent, whatever. Some pot would be like a fine wine, some would be like beer, some would be like today’s crop – like heroin. Keeping it illegal forces growers to maximize strength to minimize size. It’s like making a battlefield nuke. Put it on the top of a tank and blast away. I say legalize pot now.
June 24th, 2009 at 05:04
Legalization isn’t a solution to drug abuse; it’s a solution to the many bad effects of prohibition: property crimes and poverty due to inflated costs, disease (needle sharing), organized crime, violent markets (see horrors in Mexico), police corruption, erosion of civil liberties, prison overpopulation, undertreatment…
Slow incrementatal change is what I’m in favor of. Start with Mark Kleiman’s reasonable grow-your-own policy for marijuana (adult use, no sales, no marketing industry). And raise alcohol taxes considerably.
June 24th, 2009 at 06:45
Here to add my $0.02.
One of the most troubling aspects to me is the injustice of prohibition as compared to legal acohol. Sadly, most WOD proponents seem blissfully unaware of this aspect, or even worse, say it doesn’t matter.
To illustrate, here’s a hypothetical situation:
There’s a duplex apt. building with units A and B. Both units are rented to single males of roughly the same age, job types and income.
The man in unit A makes frequent stops at the package liquor a few blocks down from the duplex. Every weekday evening and on the weekends, he’s hitting the sauce to one to degree or another, so that by the time he goes to bed he is drunk every night.
The man in unit B is not much for alcohol, but every weekday evening and on the weekends he smokes cannibis. Every night, by the time he goes to bed, he is high to one degree or another.
It might be fair to say that they both have a drug problem, but only one of them is at risk under the law, the renter in unit B. In fact, the man in unit B is at risk of punishment under the law whether he smokes every day, once a week, once a month or once a year, as possession is the crime, not the intoxication. The man in unit A has no such problem.
Morally, their actions are identical, yet under the law, only the man in unit B is at risk of punishment. This is the very definition of injustice and should be morally repugnant to everyone. Just laws are fair laws. Laws that split hairs for social engineering purposes are going to be unjust.
Also, the drug laws are immoral. One of the Ten Commandments in the Bible is to not bear false witness against your neighbor. When you call your neighbors actions/behaviors crimes when there is no real, true criminality to the actions/behaviors in question, you are bearing false witness in calling these things “crimes”. In fact, the real crime occurs when the laws are enforced, as the use of force or the threat of the use of force is used against people whose actions are non-violent. As others have mentioned countless times, the violence surrounding drugs stems from prohibition, not the actual buying, selling and using drugs.
Lastly, I want to address your post at DrugWarRant. You posted: Franklin also said, “One man’s liberty ends where it becomes another man’s nuisance”. Those aren’t exactly the sentiments of a unrestrained libertarian.
This statement in no way supports drug prohibtion. It does support exacting some punishment for those INDIVIDUALS that make a nuisance of themselves in some way at a specific point in time for specific actions. This could apply to drug users that are acting obnoxiously in public, disturbing the public order.
Someone getting stoned at home or at a party is not a nuisance to you. Someone stoned howling at the moon at 2:00 AM some residential neighborhood is a nuisance. I hope that clears thing up for you.
June 24th, 2009 at 09:26
Nota Pothead, some citation would be nice.
While it is likely true that the THC content of today’s MJ is, on average, higher than that of 30+ years ago, the 15%-20% you write about is likely too high. These numbers you are citing come from the gov’t and are likely inflated for propaganda purposes.
Even if THC content of today’s MJ is at 8% to 15% on average, it really doesn’t mean anything as it is still the same drug of 30+ years ago. It’s not more potent in the sense that today’s pot will get you higher. It’s more potent in the sense that it has a higher percentage of THC as compared to MJ of 30- years ago. You still get the same high today as you could 30+ years ago, it’s just that with today’s MJ you can smoke less and achieve the same results. Not surprisingly, many will interpret this info from the gov’t. the way Nota Pothead did, which is what they want.
Think in terms of alcoholic beverages. The alcohol in beer is the same alcohol that is in wine and whiskey. What’s the old saying, wine is fine but liquor is quicker. The same can be said of old vs. new MJ. The high is the same with the new, it just arrives a little more quickly with less smoked substance.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:24
Pot is different now. While in the 60’s the THC content was around 4 percent it now is 15-20 25 -even 30 percent … Today’s pot is definitely bad for you. … If pot were legal one could buy pot that was 4 percent, 2 percent, whatever. Some pot would be like a fine wine, some would be like beer, some would be like today’s crop – like heroin. Keeping it illegal forces growers to maximize strength to minimize size … I say legalize pot now.
You may agree with me on whether or not it should be legalized, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out how wrong these statements are. You must have seen the latest marijuana news scare (the same thing they’ve been doing since the 30s and you’re still letting it work on you!?) which lumped hashish in to bring the average potency up. Unless you’re smoking hashish or medical grade cannabis, you don’t have to worry about the potency being over the real average of 5-7%. Potency did not just jump 20% in a year, they’ve been cultivating this plant for centuries. And since the drug’s effects take effect immediately when smoked or vaporized, experienced smokers will be able to recognize the higher potency and smoke less as a result. Just like people drink less liquor than beer to achieve the same effect, except in this case higher potency is less harmful (less smoking). Your comment on today’s marijuana being like heroin is completely unfounded. They’re both schedule 1 under the CSA, but that’s the only thing they have in common. But marinol is completely safe according to the FSA despite being 100% THC! The whole plant is better than one part of it though, and some users don’t like marinol because it doesn’t work as fast and they can’t control the dose.
June 24th, 2009 at 14:22
“Where there’s money and property, there’s robbery. Should we legalize robbery? Where there’s human beings, there are assaults and murders. Should we legalize murder? If we just legalize everything we could close all our prisons, too. ”
Ah, this old, stupid “slippery slope” argument! As many have pointed out already, this doesn’t wash; the fact that murder and robbery are crimes with actual victims and horrible consequences for society effectively renders any comparison between those crimes and the act of imbibing a drug utterly ridiculous.
But then there’s the underlying principle that you’re trying to take to the most far-fetched, silly conculsion (the reductio ad absurdum, if you will!), which is the idea that if any policy isn’t 100% successful, it should be abandoned. This is not a general principle, it only applies to certain policies. You are correct that we will never eliminate murder, robbery, and human trafficking, but it those are serious, heinous, demonstrably harmful activities that are worth using our finite resources and manpower on.
And that’s the thing: We live in a world of FINITE resources and manpower. It’s a small issue, but it does separate rhetoric from actual useful ideas. Due to these limitations and other real-world considerations, we must pick our battles carefully, and not just paint with idiotic broad strokes, i.e. “well, if you want to legalize one thing, we should just legalize EVERYthing!”, or conversely, “if it’s a bad thing to do we should use the force of law to stop people from doing it!”
June 24th, 2009 at 17:02
“I’m not against using marijuana or derivatives for medical purposes, so long as the proper research, evaluation and distribution controls are followed as with any other experimental drug. What I’m not in favor of is allowing the distribution of marijuana for medical purposes based on anecdotal evidence or collective sentiment.”
You are aware that cannabis was included in the United States Pharmacopoeia through edition XI, right? How about the reason it was missing from edition XII onward [hint- Google: Anslinger+jazz+swing )
Would you consider US Patent 6630507 [or the existence of Marinol] “anecdotal”?
How about Francis L Young’s findings?? You like arbitrary and capricious “authority”?
As I said before, allowing tobacco and alcohol to be sold and disallowing the non-toxic alternative is in and of itself murderously stupid. Withholding cannabis’ medicinal benefits is atrocity.
June 26th, 2009 at 04:26
All I ever wanted was equal treatment when things are equal. I don’t think you’re being entirely fair, because there is an underlying argument in your piece that paraphrased says something like “well, if them legalizers can’t prove that the world will be PERFECT after legalization, then I ain’t buying it”. As long as that rule stands all you’ve done is give the impression that you’re kinda open-minded, but in reality nothing will ever satisfy your criteria of Perfection, and as such you’ve made your basic belief impregnable. Nothing is ever gonna be Perfect and no reform-friendly person claims that to be the case. You’ve presented yourself quite elegantly, but this little trick of immunization is in all practical effects the same as holding your ears and chanting “caaaaan’t heeeeaaaaar you”.
Strangely enough you’ve maneuvered yourself into a position where you are rejecting the idea of legalization, because it’s not Perfect, while accepting a status quo that’s blatantly Imperfect and totally makes the same mistakes as as you point out with alcohol Prohibition.
That out of the way I will now explain why legal, regulated markets are _better_ than prohibition strategies. Not perfect, just better!
First consider the commodity “a drug”. This commodity is characterized by being extremely small, yet fetching a rather hefty price. In simple terms drugs are unparallelled goods in terms of ease of transporting, manufacturing, concealment and so on. They’re simply any economist’s wet dream. There is no readily available substitute for drugs – all the alternatives are less profitable, more risky and way more impractical. Legalization would take that AWAY from the criminals and in so doing make their life immensely more difficult.
Secondly consider the nature of the crime. Violence, murder and rape are crimes of the type called “malum in se”, ie. wrong in itself. You don’t have to have a law to tell you that those things are wrong. Drug use and even the selling of them isn’t in the same category as they belong in the “malum prohibitum” group. When a seller has an ounce of pot and you want to buy it the two of you are in perfect agrement regarding the nature of the transaction, ie. there are no victims in such a transaction. That’s why almost anyone would want to perpetrate a drug crime in preference to a real, malum in se crime. If you mug someone they’ll contact the police. If you sell pot to someone he’ll thank you.
That goes to my third point. Namely that you shouldn’t be so sure that organized crime is such a static phenomenon with completely fixed human types populating the organisation. The second that infant pops out his first thought isn’t “gee, it seems I’m thouroughly evil and I want a career in a drug cartel”. To the vast majority the jump directly from law abiding citizen to a perpetrator of a “malum in se” crime is large. Highway robbery isn’t people’s first choice. However, our drug laws have created a stepping stone to these crimes, because anyone can start small with the “malum prohibitum” crimes of selling or trafficking in drugs. He’ll feel he doesn’t do anything wrong as the buyers really seem grateful to do business with him. The logic of the situation may draw him into some really unpleasant business in the long run though. First the violence will seem like reasonable self-defence, but once all those boundaries have been broken it easily gets worse. Next thing you know this young kid is handed a gun before an important trade, or his superiors hand him a new task: whack that dude on the next block. Not so funny, but now he’s kinda addicted to the money: mortgages to pay, that sorta thing.
What legalization would do is seriously curtail the drafting of young people into first questionable crime, then serious crime. The fun is, as we must remember, to drive around in an expensive car that you would have had no way of paying for legally. And the bling.
The crimes _left_ for the organized criminals to enjoy after legalization are absolutely less enjoyable than the drugs trade. I would think that you’d really wanna strike that blow against them instead of just leaving things at the status quo where it is 100 percent certain that organized crime is promoted?
Then if you factor in the non-existent benefits of prohibition is it really so terrible to experiment with other solutions?
June 27th, 2009 at 21:30
“We have spent over a trillion dollars trying to eradicate the world’s most beneficial plant off the face of the earth. Imagine what a better world this would be if that money had been spent on treatment, education and studying the medical benefits of marijuana.”
– Steve Hager – High Times Editor (1988 – 2003)
A trillion spent is a trillion profit + tax… period.
90% of the stills during prohibition were making tractor and auto fuel.
http://tinyurl.com/StillGas
Smugglers, Growers and Peddlers are public servants bringing the public what it ask for.
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/1547
Prop 215 is the Compassionate Use Act
not the Medical Marijuana Act.
Renegade Cops & Ganja Props
http://drugwarrant.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4389#4389
FOR ANY REASON…
Without Plastic cards and politicians permission
or any business of cops and lawyers.
ALL of the harm comes from prohibition.
Sharing needles to bathtub gin.
Those degenerates who would harm others for profit.
Corporate, politician or smugglers.
Only can do it because they have a market.
Because of prohibition.
Conservatives are traditionalists and therefore organic, Ganja and Hemp are perfectly natural conservative issues. Pro Life against pesticide abortions on 90 million pounds used on cotton. The fact they call themselves conservative doesn’t make it so. Neo Cons are more liberal than true Liberals with the Military/Prison/Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex.
Virtues’ of Ganja
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/367
Southern democrats were against Lincoln republicans until Johnson, then they took over the Goldwaterites and their Eisenhower disappointment Nexxon covered the big lie of the Controlled Substance Ax with bullshit hobgoblins of WATERGATE. A second rate burglary. While lies of omitting the tax paid Shafer Commission report, based mostly on previous research studies the same as the IOM in 1999. It only verified past La Guardia, Wootton and Indian Hemp Commission reports. No Ganja was ever burned during these verifications. The FDA has never officially smelled burning pot and an FDA employee’s opinion repeating the manual is not science, even if the top mudia “news programs/programmed news” claim it is.
The only comparison was no discrimination of smoke, it all has equal rights of being harmful. The laws of physics differ in that tobacco has never caused harm in 30,000 years of Indian use. Or the Egyptians or Turks or Sir Walter Raleigh or Thomas Jefferson. Not until the same corporations selling deadly chemicals with the Fossil Fools new crud plastic clothing that coincidentally started at the same time as The Marihuana Tax Ax. Even though many hoops were placed to jump through, and the catch 22 was the same in the un-American Act of any agency having a monopoly on the verdict. Meaning even Judge Young couldn’t over rule the DEAth. Red Flag. Hemp and Rx Ganja were still “legal” until Timothy Leary won the Supreme Court case overturning the Act in 1969. Opening the way for furthur fascism and the CSA.
No questions when the mudia is owned, therefore it is not a Free Press. So the chemicals added to tobacco not reported, to enhance the burn rate of the tobacco, to stay lit in the ash tray. Coincidentally providing more profits to the many industries living off of the burned downed houses and medical treatment. Belongings needing replaced. War doesn’t pay. Police Actions after Mission Accomplished pay. Sickness treatment pays. Prevention and Cures don’t. More profits when the smoker has to buy more sooner to get the fix, not gotten wasted in the ashtray. Same as buying more gas stuck in traffic. Bottlenecks are an OPECkers best friend.
“How strange that an innocent herb causes money to burn. They’ll jail you or kill you for making those rich fat cats squirm. They’re the fools who make rules with no difference between wrong and right.
That’s why the Free Mexican Air Force is flyin’ tonight.”
~ Peter Rowan
http://drugwarrant.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146
Flame retardants in the paper to be equal to the burn rate of the tobacco. Chemicals to make the smoke white, visual aid to the nipple looking filters and the oral gratification of breast feeding. Flavor chemicals to add to the enjoyment and satisfaction as Ronnie Rayguns used to get paid to say.
No chemicals in Ganja. No comparison. As an expectorant it would help everyone get rid of the SMOG and car exhaust fumes and cigarette damage. So called Liberals, geared to government assuring people and corporations played fair, are not NEO-libs who trade classrooms for jail cells.
Its about preventing victims. Not manufacturing band aids and believing the crap about the poor. War cost more than the basics for American citizens, with birthrights to Liberty. A prerequisite to any attempt at a Pursuit of Happiness. A post-requisite of Life.
Where politicians and corporations fail to see is the prerequisite to Life is also guaranteed. Food, shelter, clothing and medical availability. By a means of the citizen to undertake and by the government until it is possible in a physical sense. If the corporations poison us we should arrest the decisions makers the same as a thug or so called gang violence.
“But I’ve done a bit of smugglin’, I’ve run my share of grass.
Made enough money to buy Miami, but I pissed it away so fast.
Never meant to last, never meant to last…”
~ Jimmy Buffett
If a journalist lies then it has the same results as yelling fire in a crowded theater. Or detour signs leading into a lake. It should have repercussions to deter future lies. Politicians, judges and especially cops are living in a pseudo world where the incentive is to win and all are guilty. Money is as bad as the lies in removing the reality of physics. Influencing legislations to profit certain citizens over others is fascism. Corporatism in gutting regulations that protect workers and the environment that is owned by no one. Nexxons lie is killing people.
How many have been victimized by this longest war compared to how many have from Ganja. As Churchill said, I know my legacy will be an honorable one since I’m writing the History books. Or napoleons History is a lie agreed upon. Those of us not speaking out when lies are spoken are as guilty as the liars. If we have lived long enough to remember History, and the talking heads repeat drug czar gossip we know is unsubstantiated crap we should write the sponsors and boycott. Programmed education depravation censors History books of the word Hemp to avoid confusing the kids. By drug czar/education secretary Bill slot machine Bennett, the man of virtues. The agenda has always been that it will continue as planned. Nationalist Patriotic Perpetuation. No money for the Ganjawar brokers in zero tolerance or removing Nexxons legal lies.
Most growers and peddlers are individuals supplementing income because not many business’ are paying living wages. Supplying a demand at various levels of stress on both sides caused by prohibition. People seek Ganja not the reversed. No one “sells” pot. No advertising budget, no flip charts, demographics or fancy packaging.
“Of all serious crimes under the law, smuggling…
least violates the consciences of men.
It is a crime against law and against government,
but not against morality.
The smuggler robs no man.
He buys goods honestly in one market
and sells them honestly in another.
His offense is against an arbitrary regulation of government….
he simply fails to pay its demands.
Many men otherwise honest
are unable to see any moral turpitude in smuggling.
… government, in exacting toll, plays the part of the highwayman.”
– “The Kaasan Bay ‘Find,’” editorial,
The Oregonian, Jan. 21, 1886, p. 2
The White Rose
http://i43.tinypic.com/2i03as0.jpg
June 27th, 2009 at 22:50
Below is a another example of a sick American persecuted by a vicious policy that makes no sense. How is this man connected to organized crime or drug cartels. Note he was arrested for simply growing his own marijuana for medical use. He did not sell, give away or profit from the marijuana. He was sentenced to 93 years in prison this is one of many cases like this, there are good Americans serving life for growing marijuana. That is wrong, the drug war is hurting the country, and turning Americans against each other when we need each other more than ever before. There Are countries and people who love this they want to bring us down and we are helping them. Open your eyes and your mind, help unite Americans. The drug war is an ongoing problem, has failed, and is destructive to Americans and America. Yes drugs are a problem, a health problem, help your brother instead of destroying him you may just need him.
check this out your tax dollars are paying for this
Will Foster, is an Oklahoma man whose 1995 arrest for growing medical marijuana had attracted international attention after he received a 93-year prison sentence. Foster, who grew the marijuana to treat his rheumatoid arthritis, had been released in April 2001 after serving four and a half years, thanks to an appeals court that reduced his sentence to 20 years, making him eligible for parole. “A lot of people tell me I give them hope,” Foster said, “because I did have 93 years in prison, and now I’m free.”
Not anymore. The Drug War Chronicle reports that Foster has been behind bars for nearly 16 months in California, where he moved (with Oklahoma’s permission) after his release, because of a dispute over the terms of his parole. The story is a bit complicated, but the basic thrust is that California officials said Foster had completed his parole, while Oklahoma officials disagreed. In 2006 he successfully fought an Oklahoma warrant, but later the state issued a new warrant after Foster refused to agree to a retroactive four-year extension of his parole. That was not a problem until Foster was busted for growing marijuana by Sonoma County sheriff’s deputies. The cultivation charges were dropped after it became clear that the plants were for Foster’s own medical use, but he remains in jail awaiting extradition to Oklahoma, which wants him to complete his 20-year prison sentence.
“In their warrant, they said I violated the terms and conditions of parole in Oklahoma, then fled Oklahoma to escape justice,” Foster told the Chronicle. “But I haven’t been back in Oklahoma since I left in 2001. I successfully finished parole here, I beat back that earlier extradition effort, and they’re still coming after me.”
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Oklahoma Gov. Brady Henry have the power to stop what looks like vindictive harassment of a man who has already spent a total of nearly six years behind bars for something that should not have been a crime to begin with.
If he had bought his medical marijuana from organized crime instead of growing his own, he would be free and they would have his money. That is the reality. It is ime for a national reconciliation, time to end the drug war on Americans. For the good of the country. We have bigger problems than a sick man growing his own medicine. That really is none of your concern or the governments business. Regulation is the way.
The real reason drugs are illegal is because it is profitable. The drug war has cost over one trillion dollars and all we have gotten are more drugs, stronger drugs, and millions of Americans broken or destroyed. Make no mistake this is about profits but not just for organized crime. The prison industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industry and law enforcement, depend on the drug war. they reap billions of tax dollars from it. Politicians can not throw enough of your money away on it, so much time has passed that the raw data is there for all to see. The numbers and results speak for them self. What have you got for your trillion dollars. Screwed if you ask me……..any questions
June 28th, 2009 at 03:46
You are a total mess. Do you live in the U.S.? You think what we’re doing is working? Our nations drug policy encourages more use and more people to deal. Prohibition creates a risk premium, or profit. So, there is always a large incentive for more people to deal. The country should legalize all drugs.
June 29th, 2009 at 00:38
It’s abysmally stupid not to decriminalize Marijuana in the United States, and I’m constantly baffled that more people aren’t outraged at their taxes providing room and board for people guilty of nothing more than possessing a certain plant. However, I understand that nobody is going to risk their political career reforming an expensive policy failure when such an action is irreversibly stigmatized by a generation of cheesy stoner jokes and the lingering effects of Reefer Madness-esque propaganda. I can live with it. What I cannot stand is that America is not content to merely maintain poor policy, but insists upon exporting and propagating such policies to other sovereign nations.
Take Cambodia. In Cambodia, marijuana is unpopular amongst the youth, who view it as a boring old man’s hobby. Tourists had long enjoyed being able to travel to Cambodia to munch on some “Happy Pizza”, but then the US linked economic aid to the passage of legislation criminalizing marijuana in a country with no cultural aversion to it. For a developing nation, it wasn’t a tough choice- the law was swiftly passed, and although it’s in a state of salutary neglect, these developments exhibit America’s willingness to not only practice foolishness, but to demand that others practice it also.
If the US wants to go bankrupt in a futile effort to at least make a dent in the number of domestic marijuana smokers, that’s fine. If America wants to add more Mexican drug lords to the Forbes billionaires list, that’s also fine. If America wants to ruin countless more families and lives because somebody chose to ingest a plant that gives them a buzz, that is still fine with me. But for Pete’s sake, at least have the decency to keep this failure of government confined to American soil.
PS. For the next war on a plant, I nominate asparagus!