Should the Democrats be the party of drug law reform?

This is in response to a post with a similar title that is actually an anti-marijuana tirade in disguise.

A Pew poll not too many years ago found that 75% of American believe the war on drugs is "a failure." By any objective measure, they are right. The prices of illicit drugs are down, the purity is up, and drug use is fairly steady despite decades of heavy law enforcement spending. We spend $40 billion a year to fight the drug war. We have half a million people in prison on drug charges. We have shredded the Fourth Amendment in our pursuit of drug users. Blah blah blah. You all know these things.

The drug reform movement is generating third party candidacies--Green Cliff Thornton for governor of Connecticut, Libetarian Loretta Nall for governor of Alabama, Green/Populist/Libertarian Kevin Zeese (of the 2004 Nader campaign)for US senate in Maryland. Is it time for the Democrats to grab this issue?

Should the party support:

Legalizing marijuana?

Getting the federal government out of state medical marijuana programs?

Sentencing reform?

Funding for treatment and prevention instead of law enforcement?

Legalizing, regulating, and taxing the sale and consumption of all drugs?

How would the party be helped or hurt by embracing some or all of these planks?

I'm going out to sit on a mountain side and smoke a bowl, but I'll be back...

calling off the drugwar could be a start.

Assuming he doesn't pull a Carter.

of appealing to the millions of urban, educated, socially libertarian voters in this country who can't figure out which party is more interested in running their lives.

Legalize, regulate, and tax Marijuana. De-fund the drug war, funnel some of that money into treatment, adopt a "harm reduction" strategy towards harder drugs like the Netherlands has, that would be a start. Stand up for the right of consenting adults to make their own damn decisions about their own bodies, from reproductive choice to the chemicals they choose to imbibe to the right of terminally ill people to choose a dignified, pain-free exit.

We already have one party that wants to wedge its big theocratic boot up the population's ass- we need to be the party of personal liberty.

By just rushing head-long into legalization, the repukes would be given more ammo then they would know what to do with. A good start is stopping the jailing of non-violent drug offenders, nationwide, getting them into treatment, where appropriate, and instigating a review of the sentences of those already jailed.

Let's empty the jails out of those who don't belong there. Let's stop The War on (Some) Drugs and (Some) People.

We have "bigger fish to fry."

Many of the states have figured out that it's just too damned expensive to imprison drug offenders and have changed sentencing policies, California being probably the best example, with its "treatment not jail" law. Of course, there's always a demon drug du jour--this year's version is methamphetamine--that traditional drug fighters use to try to push sentences back up again.

There is also an increasing awareness among state-level politicians and officials that drug treatment is more effective than imprisonment, but securing funding is always a battle. Again, California is a prime example; the "treatment not jail" program there is in a bitter battle right now to get enough money to actually work properly.

And believe it or not, the Bush administration actually cut some federal drug war funding, especially the Justice Assistance Grants program that funds all those local cowboy anti-drug task forces. They also cut funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program, which has turned into a pork barrel. Whether those cuts will survive the howling of congressional drug warriors and their law enforcement constituencies remains to be seen.

But for me, all of this is just marginal change. I think we need truly radical reform. I think we need to get this entirely out of the criminal justice system (except for cleaning up the mess, as is the case with alcohol)and treat drug use as a public health matter, but ultimately as not an arena for state intervention unless it leads to criminality or harm to others.

And last i heard, progressives stood against regressive taxes.

The democratic party needs the power of being the party of the poor, and the
drugs war, being against the poor, is certainly a good place to start.

It would be a ridiculous distraction from more important matters.

Flame away

And banning gay marriage?

One needn't be for flag burning to know that pushing for the legalization of pot is not a way to win moderate voters.

(You completely missed the point on the flag burning post, BTW)

Just curious.

The "point" was a smear on Democrats like Clinton and Kucinich who supposedly reached out to middle america on Flag burning. Or perhaps it was an attempt to point out that Republicans control the agenda? If the later was the point, my point is made.

I think moderate voters should be wooed on Iraq/health care/the economy. And, I think we are beginning to do just that with steps like Kerry/Feingold just took.

How do YOU think we should woo moderates?

Most Americans oppose the legalization of pot (let alone other drugs) unless it's for medicinal use, pressing for "legalization" would be politically ignorant.

But I agree with you on Iraq/health care & the economy.

I think the American People are sick of a government that constantly tries to run their personal lives.

hippies" agenda.

Your argument can be rephrased any number of ways, and in fact it has, as an excuse to tamp down the well-deserved aspirations of many allegedly unpopular groups in our party with legitimate calls for rights. Now is not the time to push forward the "Democrats are the party of Gays" by standing up for equal marriage rights. Now is not the time to make people think "Democrats hate God" by standing up for the separation of Church and State.

Actually, I think now is an EXCELLENT time for *our party* to stand up for the rights of consenting adults to make their own damn decisions about their own damn bodies. That goes for reproductive choice, that goes for the right of pain patients to get adequate pain management without fear of the DEA, that goes for the right of the terminally ill to choose a pain-free, dignified exit if they so desire, and that sure as hell goes for scaling back the drug war and legalizing pot.

Something like 50-60 Million Americans smoke pot and still manage to be productive citizens. They can't ALL be hippies, can they? Maybe instead of bending over backwards to figure out how we can convince the so-called "values voter" that we're more pro life and pro Jesus than the GOP, we should try a different angle.

Sorry. It's always a good time for individual liberty.

As for Hippies; Shit, Al Gore and Patrick Leahy are Deadheads- maybe "hippie" isn't the slur some think it is.

of "hippy" in me.

My issue is not about "bashing" anyone, it's about a realistic appraisal of how this issue will impact the election. Any comment on THAT?

I think the American people are quite a bit more socially libertarian than either party wants to admit. I also think that urban, socially libertarian voters are one area that hasn't been effectively mined by either party. I think the numbers are there- maybe not for legalizing pot as a standalone issue, but if it was framed in the larger context of standing up for the rights of individuals and the bedrock principle that what a consenting adult does with his or her own body -insofar as he or she isn't harming anyone else- is nobody's business but the individual's; be that smoke pot, be that choose euthanasia if he or she is terminally ill, be that engage in consensual adult gay (or straight) sex, be that look at consenting adult porn, be that use birth control or exercise reproductive choice.

Couple that -and a clear call to respect the constitution and repair the damage that has been done to the bill of rights in the past several decades- with calls for a fair deal for the American worker, a liveable minimum wage, and a SPHC system, I think we could appeal both to disenfranchised urbanites and lower middle class "heartland" voters.

That, to me, is a realistic and different approach which I believe could significantly improve our party's prospects.

pro-legalization b/c I haven't seen them.

the bedrock principle that what a consenting adult does with his or her own body -insofar as he or she isn't harming anyone else- is nobody's business but the individual's

Again, drugs harm those who use them and their families.

I will say that I agree with you fully in principle.

A Gallup poll this year showed almost half of voters in the Pacific West are ready to vote for legalization; the number drops down into the 30s in other areas.

Of course, if we wait for majority support before pushing an issue, we'd still have different drinking fountains for coloreds. Pushing the issue can help shape public opinion.

area.

Additionally, I think you're wrong on drinking fountain straw man. Further, I think it's insultive to African Americans to compare illegal drug use to the right to exist as a complete human being.

You go ahead and push the issue, I am certain that Democrats as a political party won't do so.

to end the drug war, too. :hippie:

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

now we just need the average Joe. ;)

My parents were pot heads and they'd disagree with you as well. Smoking weed/selling weed is a choice and people know it's illegal. I'd rather see kids get health care personally.

We are talking about a massive drug war that wastes billions of dollars, doesnt prevent drug use, and incacerates minorities and the poor above all others.

However you fall on the issue, claiming it isnt a big deal is silly. The money involved alone makes it a big deal. Take another look at the national debt, alot of that money was spent fighting a war against drug users.

1.7 million drug arrests last year, more than 80% for simple possession.

700,000 marijuana arrests last year, more than 80% for simple possession.

About 10 million people arrested for marijuana since Bill Clinton took office.

Half a million people imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses in the US last year.

Employment drug testing, school drug testing, police checkpoints, aggressive SWAT-style drug raids, prohibition-related violence, the disproportionate impact on blacks, etc, etc.

Our drug policies have a dramatic and mostly negative impact on our quality of life and our freedoms.

Even if you choose to ignore the victims.

I don't wish to ignore them. There is no way to come out of a home where drug use is rampant and not be a victim.

Legalization will be viewed as "encouraging."

Personally, I'm not opposed to legalized drug use - politically I think it's !#% suicide.

In the current climate, the average Joe is not responsive to arguments regarding children as the "libruls" have played that card too often to gain social programs. The average Joe of 2006 does not care about "the children" or anybody but himself. So saving taxes by leaving people and their children to the consequences of their own decisions will appeal to them.

"Dealers" are just providing a service, they do not "Push" drugs. Drugs sell themselves.

The idea that anyone will start using heroin today because it is made legal is bogus. Very few 'new' users would be created by legalizing, regulating, taxing, and educating.

Are YOU going to rush out and shoot up if the govt stops telling you it will put you in jail for it?



yeah, didn't think so

However, the health costs involved with legal or illegal use are also not trivial. Nor is the emotional cost to the children of addicts.

Not as "let's all get high!" but as you pointed out.

Good post :thumbsup:

The MSM?

Or, you know, actually stand up and do the right thing?

And, I do think that before we venture in to such an issue we MUST consider how it will impact the coming elections.

Mandatory sentencing laws disproportionately affect people of color. African-Americans make up 15% of the country’s drug users, yet they make up 37% of those arrested for drug violations, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for a drug offense.

http://www.idpi.us/resources/factsheets/mm_factsheet.htm

With that in mind for how we're selecting our victims take 30 seconds to glance at the following page then explain how this isn't a major problem. That's not one in eight in a given neighborhood, that's in the nation. Some neighborhoods are hit HARD. What effect do you think this has on those communities, and exactly what is it that Democratic stands for?

http://www.prisonsucks.com/

This is a matter of class-ism and discrimination. Both issues Democrats should obviously address and both issues that have effected our nation for far too long.

As for the communities you mention, I grew up in said communities. I saw a drastic improvement in those communities under Clinton policies vs. Reagan policies.

I haven't an issue with changing sentencing guidelines and/or using "drug courts" as opposed to traditional courts, but I don't want to take up the banner of "legalization" as a political party.

Why?

Mandatory drug sentencing for those found guilty of possession and sales of drugs is one that most Americans support. Voters have shown strong backing to political candidates who adopt the "longer sentencing" position.

http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm

When it comes to "pot" specifically Americans wish sentences to be "light" but want the drug to remain illegal.

I don't agree with mandatory sentencing and hard lines on marijuana. I would like to see change, but I don't want to take up the "legalize X" banner going into 2006. If you scroll to the bottom of the gallup poll I posted above nearly 70% of Americans are opposed to legalizing pot.

When people think legalize they think it's time to party in the streets, when they think regulate it's better. I never liked the legalize argument so much anyway because then we have to explain to people the difference between free use and intelligent regulation.

Here's an example with heroin, if it can be done with that it can be done with anything.

http://www.dpft.org/heroin.htm

That's reduced use, reduced damage, and reduced costs on society as a whole. The idea that the public doesn't support it yet doesn't disturb me in the slightest, nobody has bothered to offer them any options yet. I just got done discussing this stuff on another board with a CO (Corrections Officer) who I've been talking to about this for maybe two or three months and he finally told me the other night that he not only agreed but he had mentioned it to his boss at work and it made sense to him. So, we allow death and damage for no good reason because we're afraid to tell people the truth?

Isn't that the type of thing that earned the party a bad reputation for compromise in the past? When we stood and fought such as during the civil rights era we were strong, when we compromised our principles we watch the slow decline of the party. Time to pick a path, I know what side I want to be on.

If you'd like to discuss this further here or private I'd be glad to, this is real stuff. If you want the word of cops on the subject look at the video I posted a link to earlier in the thread. The deeper we look the worse the drug war looks, it's as simple as us talking about it and letting people know.

Do we really think we can educate Americans about this issue and turn the tide amongst all that is happening? I personally don't. The MSM won't even tell the truth about Iraq let alone the "war on drugs."

Drugs cause death and damage legal or not, and selling them is a choice. Sorry, I've seen to many lives destroyed to think that if we "tax and regulate" it will solve all of our problems. I don't think drug users should be jailed, but dealers should suffer a penalty.

What do you think should happen to dealers who sell elicit drugs to school children, for example?

The only way we end up with more than a small number of dealers is if we insist on past policies. I'll cover another aspect first though, the idea of "death and damage legal or not".

Here's our record with heroin so far when it comes to death.

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/cdc/opiates-yr.htm

That's a climb from 367 deaths in the year 1979 to 2,947 deaths by 1998 or a rate change from bouncing between 0.1-0.2 to the current 1.1 death rate for heroin. Our policies haven't saved a life, they've cost quite a few of them. The main killers aren't the drugs themselves so much as unknown purity, contaminants, and fear of asking for help if in trouble. We've made them as dangerous as possible.

Here's heroin purity
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/heroin-purity.htm
And prices
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/heroin-prices.htm

Purity at the user level climbed from 8% in 1981 to 39%, prices dropped in 2002 inflation adjusted dollars from $1,974.49 a gram in 1981 to $372.00 in 2002. Think the higher purity and lower prices have something to do with death rates?

Now to our options. The Swiss used to be almost as stupid as we are, they had about the toughest heroin policies in Europe and the damage just climbed and climbed like ours has. They tried a harm reduction approach that was recently covered by the British medical journal The Lancet, here's an article about it.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/439/swissresults.shtml

Now compare those results. Our climbing damage and failure compared to their results. See a difference there?

Ok, back to the dealers and the example I offered before. The first link I gave in the above post was to the heroin aspect of the program above, they took current and hardcore addicts who didn't respond to treatment and just let them have the heroin. In over five years not a single death, none. For every person they move from the streets to that there are less customers for the dealers, apply the approach widely enough and with no business we have no dealers. We could get stupid and try to tax stuff heavily, or to restrict things sharply enough that we force people back to the streets, but given the choice between a legal source with known purity and quality they choose the legal route in real life experience.

If we leave any dealers on the streets or not is our choice, as is the death rates we see today vs the lowered rates of use and damage with the program the Swiss use.

Offer people options, let them know it's there. It'll take time to get used to the idea but it's a solid one. I don't expect change today, or even anytime soon. We have to get the conversation started though or they never even get the choice.

Dealers should be dealt with, especially those who sell to children.

The argument you make is not going to appeal to John Doe. Sure legalization means that dealers likely become corporations vs. the dude on the corner, and death rates may in fact decline, but death is but ONE undesirable consequence to drug use/abuse.

Dealers are there to serve customers, move the customers to regulated establishments and we have no need for dealers. When was the last time you were offered bootleg outside the corner liquor store? Regulation doesn't make problems go away but it does give us control for the first time in decades where in the past it's been criminal controlled.

The argument wasn't meant to appeal to john doe, when I deal with new groups it's a long and step by step process. First they learn about the prison system, the racial balance, the for profit motives involved in everything from drug testing and so on, and they generally lead the way into the rest. It works just fine. As long as people aren't aware of how bad things work of course they don't want to change it, so we make them aware. It's not really a happy thing to realize that we live in the single most imprisoned nation in the world and lock our own up at a rate 5-8 times higher than comparable nations. It's a verifiable fact though and tends to get their interest.

Will it be easy? Nope. Will it be worth it and save lives? Sure looks that way from the trial programs we've got so far. Civil rights wasn't easy either, some fights are worth it.

At least from my personal experience. When I was in jr.high/high school I could buy ANY drug available in the smokers area in the back of said school. Alcohol was another matter, as kids we had to find an adult willing to buy for us, that was far more difficult. When it comes to drugs - kids are used to sell to other kids.

I'm not convinced that a measure such as this WILL save lives. Look at deaths related to alcohol (especially before and after prohibition.) That's likely a more accurate measure.

And alcohol wasn't as available when you were a kid, wouldn't that have something to do with the fact that alcohol is regulated and drugs aren't? Of course drugs were easy to get. That's why we replace the dealers.

The argument you make seems to favor drug regulation. Put it behind a counter and it's not as available.

The thing is we need to make a real mind shift here, with regulation we would be in control. If we see a potential problem it really doesn't have to be there, we can fix it. For instance I see no reason at all for it to be a for profit business to start with. No advertising and no product placement in media, treat them either like prescription drugs for the harder ones or like the ABC stores some states have.

It's not a single "fix", it's simply us having control just like we do over most every other thing in life. The rules past that are what we make them. If we see a problem we figure out how to deal with it. Can't do that with criminal control, they don't listen to our suggestions.

legalization would also make drugs more common IMHO negating any positive effect via regulation.

However, I'll say again that my MAIN issue is a political one. The question was posed "should Democrats be the party of drug reform?" I answered NO, I don't think we should be THE party of drug reform.

We could also look at this from yet another angle. Legalization = corporatization, which = less money/financial opportunities for people in need. I knew single mothers who sold drugs to make ends meet, for example.

I'm not going to argue with you that drugs should or shouldn't be legal, my answer was regarding whether or not Democrats should hold up the "legalize X" banner, I answered no purely for political reasons.

I see pros and cons to legalization, it's not a black and white issue for me.

"legalization would also make drugs more common IMHO negating any positive effect via regulation."

Is it possible that could happen? Sure. Does it have to? Nope. Look again at those programs that are running today, years of real life experience behind them. The Swiss program with heroin has shown great success, good enough that when it came up for a vote to close or to expand it between 70-71% of the voters said to expand it. They've reduced use, reduced death, and killed a portion of the market for the criminals. Every dime moved from them to us is that much less supporting everything from street crime to terrorism. The only reason to assume it won't work is if we don't want it to.

Regulation of pot where applied has worked out well too, some short term experimentation but they tend to get bored with it long term.

The next part I'll take strong exception to though, the idea that "Legalization = corporatization". How do you get there? Legalization means anything we want it to, it in no way implies profit motives or corporate control. Do those heroin clinics in Sweden look to you like a for profit enterprise? Then why do ours look like that to you? That's only the way it is if we decide that's the way it should be.

Another option would be to run non-profit clinics with some fraction of the tens of billions we're currently spending to lock them up and run the programs with that. No advertising, no profit motives, no lawsuits for someone doing something stupid by their own choice.

The rules are what we make them, create all the worst case scenarios you want but it's only there by choice. If we decide to do it differently the problem simply isn't there.

In order to sell me on legalization, I'd have to see evidence that Americans were on board. If you say it's a matter of education, then get back to me when America is educated. ;)

As for how I get to corporatization, do you see mom and pop stores on your street corner? If drugs were legalized - drug companies would have more drugs to deal - that's the reality. I'm not saying drug clinics would be corporatized for profit organizations, surely those would be bottom dollar tax payer funded shacks.

Regarding Sweden specifically, I don't think you can use that structure as an example of the goals you promote: http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/sweden3.html

The anti drug laws have got progressively more severe over the years and are now the hardest in Europe. Police give drug violations top priority and Sweden is the only country in the European Union that has criminalised drug use as well as posession. Passing a joint counts as trafficking and carries a mandatory prison sentence and drug violations are regularly given harsher sentences than other crimes, including crimes of violence.

Sounds like Sweden has gone from tolerant to intolerant, one might look at THAT as an example?

Over time, Swedish policy became more repressive. The current Swedish policy, with its primary goal of a drug-free society, was instituted in the late 1970’s because of what was thought to be an increasing social problem.

This is also of interest: Some authors have drawn a link between Sweden’s restrictive drug policy and its restrictive alcohol policy. The temperance movement has a long history in Sweden and the country has developed a fairly restrictive alcohol policy, including a state monopoly on the sale of alcohol.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/sweden/

There is no real distinction between hard and soft drugs in Sweden. Marijuana is viewed as a dangerous drug that leads to harder drugs and lifelong addiction. Drug education programs start early and regularly appear throughout the school curriculum. The Swedish vision of a drug-free society is so widely accepted that it is not questioned in the political arena or the media. The Swedish drug policy has support from all political parties and, according to the opinion surveys, the restrictive approach receives broad support from the public.

-----------

I think we're talking in circles though as I am considering the political perspective.

This isn't a project for this election, or the next one. As I said many posts ago this is a long term thing when starting with a new group. The public as a whole would fall into that category. It starts with basic education, start telling people the effects of our laws and the real shape of our prison system. I don't have the slightest problem with a step by step approach starting with reform of mandatory sentencing laws and the so called "safe school zones". This isn't an argument you jump into and "win", it's a slow and gradual realization that we have more options than we thought at first.

I don't expect the party will jump up tomorrow and say "legalize them", that would be rather stupid without laying the groundwork and educating the public first. It is something we should be moving in the direction of though.

On your point with Sweden I think you totally misunderstood. I wasn't suggesting that we adopt their national policies, as I said in an early post in this thread they used to be almost as stupid as we are in our drug policies. The only example I'll draw from there is the heroin program which has been successful. Their other problems aside, and they are there, this is a model worth looking into. I really can't understand the idea some have that it has to be all or nothing, you can't borrow success where you find it without copying their failures too.

too." I think you need to heed your own advice. With every thing there is a give and take.

I'm glad we're in agreement on the political perspective as that's what I'm addressing here.

Quote something out of context then pretend it means the exact opposite of what was actually said? I didn't take you for that type.

The quote you took a part of actually said "I really can't understand the idea some have that it has to be all or nothing, you can't borrow success where you find it without copying their failures too."

You don't need to copy everything someone does to see that they've got a good idea in one area. What, we're mindless clones now that can't adapt and think for ourselves? Take what's good and trash what's bad, it doesn't have to be all or nothing and it shouldn't be.

I started with saying this is a long slow process with new groups, it's not like you brought me around on the idea ;) I've been doing this stuff for years, it's not only possible to bring the public around on the subject but it seems fairly non-partisan and most are pissed when they realize how they've been mislead. It's all there in the records, just records that nobody bothered to share with them before.

Cheerio.

:hi:

There is no reason for prohibition, it is massively expensive, and it means taking away the liberty of hundreds of thousands of people.

Lets make drugs as difficult to get as alchohol by ending prohibition.

home and find a liquor store in every direction.

When you are done arguing with yourself, get back to me.

I'm not arguing with myself. You're not looking at "the big picture."

legal or in any way facilitating such. We're talking about adults, here. Besides, if the street customer dries up, due to some saner system, I doubt there's enough money in the grade school market to support the huge and profitable system that exists now.

Nor do i think that the original poster is saying lets make this an issue in the 06 elections: too late in the season for that, it will require a plan.

This is as far as I got in the thread, and I don't usually post before reading all responses, but I'm too tired to read any more.

but as far as "drugs causing so much harm" - well, so does alcohol. There are always some people who will be addicted, use to excess, etc. Prob a genetic flaw. But the current system does nothing to prevent that, even were it our right to do so, while wreaking great harm on the poor and most particularly people of color. The damn "war on drugs" is nothing but an cover-up for destroying our rights and for racism.

The harm extends to the rest of us in the form of the horrific social and $$ costs of having more people in prison than anywhere else in the civilized or even most of the uncivilized world, and the price we'll pay for years to come from the appalling destruction wrought by putting - is it one in four? - black men in jail for part of their lives, while at the same time we leave the inner cities to rot.

Every day that we put off changing this horrific system is more lives lost, both to death (including from AIDS), more lives destroyed by bad drugs and prison, more kids starting drug use because drugs are so readily available on the street, and more millions taken from programs that could actually help people rather than shore up the Prison/Military/Industrial complex.

Prohibition didn't work then, it doesn't work now.

edit for punctuation

commentary, so I pose the question. What about people who deal to kids?

Still waiting for an answer.

Agreed alcohol causes harm, and one could argue that legalization has made it more harmful. Though, I'm not in favor of reinstating prohibition.

People sell to kids today, we're assuming that they aren't? We have a free drug market today where if they choose to sell to a ten year old on a playground then that's exactly where it'll be sold and to who. It happens all the time. They sell where they want and to who they want.

The worst case with regulation is that nothing changes, odds are high though that it'll improve. As you mentioned yourself in another post when you were a kid drugs were easy to get but for alcohol you had to get someone to go to the store for you. Sounds better than today to me if that applied to both.

We've reduced smoking by over 50% in recent decades with no prison, no harsh penalties, nothing but education. Now look at the following chart. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin with a pretty nasty withdrawal in itself. We've got that, successful programs with heroin itself, and success with regulating pot on the other end. The only reason to assume we won't see an improvement with all of that behind us is because that's what we want to believe.

http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

And as such, the social consequences of alcohol use have also increased. Children pay a price by using drugs/alcohol and/or when parents are addicted so to act as though legalizing drugs would remove any price is fool hardy.

Again, there are several ways to view this issue.

Also, as a former smoker who's known several people who've died from lung cancer, I'd have to say that I wouldn't cry if cigarettes were illegal. Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer in the US and 85% of all cases of LC are a direct result of smoking cigarettes. About 200 thousand people die every year as a consequence of smoking.

As you can see there are arguments for and against legalizing drugs, and I'm not willing to ask my political party to jump into that particular cesspool.

We're talking in circles and I'm done.

Regulation isn't a control for use past restricting it from minors better than we have in the past. Regulation is an approach to our crime and prison problem, to the problem of our death rates due to unknown purity and contaminants, and to the fact that we've been supporting organized crime and terrorism with our past policies. Regulation is about that.

Use itself we deal with through education. As you mentioned tobacco kills and we've reduced smoking by over 50% in recent years just through education and regulation alone. We haven't had the same success with drugs, but others who have tried regulation and/or treatment seem to be making better progress without the prisons. Regulation for damage, education for use and we'll have tens of billions more for that with a shift from drug war to drug regulation.

Here's a glimpse of comparative rates between us and a few nations, prisoners per 100,000.

United States of America, 738
Sweden, 78
United Kingdom: England & Wales, 145
France, 88

It doesn't get a lot better. If you think anyone else is anywhere near as bad as we are, Sweden included, you're kidding yourself. Look it up for yourself, go to http://www.prisonstudies.org/ and select World Prison Brief, then highest to lowest rates, then select by population rates. We are the world leader in imprisoning our own, and by a long shot.

That is the crux of this discussion beyond the obvious political consequences.

Additionally, smoking is on the rise among young people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12773786&query_hl=68

And is becoming more deadly for women.

Incidence trends in lung cancer increased from 1973 until 1991, but have since declined. Lung cancer mortality continues to increase for females but has been declining for men since 1990.

Further, I'm not talking about how to reduce the prison population, we could eliminate laws altogether and not have prisons were that the only goal.

As I've said, I'm concerned about if it's a good idea for "Democrats to be the party of drug reform."

However if we were discussing reducing the prison population, I don't think one could argue that legalizing drugs is the key:

# In 2002 -- 68% of jail inmates reported symptoms in the year before their admission to jail that met substance dependence or abuse criteria. And, just 21% of our prison population is incarcerated due to drug related offenses, our issues go well beyond "legalizing drugs." Also, many people who commit crimes do so while high or drunk.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

Again, as you can see one can argue from several different perspectives on this issue. Politically it's a nightmare that we can't afford right now.

I really must move on to other things.

Thanks for the discussion.

Here's a chart showing our federal spending on drug control (doesn't include State) compared with annual use trends on a variety of illegal drugs. Use was up on pot, up on heroin, and not changed a lot on coke though that was better than some.

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/spend-use.htm

Past month looks a little better until we bring in the death rates. Seven times as many dead from cocaine, somewhere near ten times as many from heroin. Here's the past month use one and the death rates for both.

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/monthly-use.htm
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/cdc/opiates-yr.htm
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/cdc/cocaine-yr.htm

Making it illegal didn't solve a thing, it just filled those prisons, raised death rates by several times, and funded a worldwide criminal enterprise that we didn't have before the drug war. Not much of a success story.

It is EXACTLY the same with EVERY drug. Even drugs as destructive as alcohol, heroin, and cocaine.


Prohibition ALWAYS makes the social affects of drug use WORSE. ALWAYS. EVERY TIME. WITHOUT FAIL.



LEGALIZE

REGULATE

TAX

and

EDUCATE

eom

Or dont you think the massive amount of money flowing into organized crime rings was a social consequence?

American family.

during drive by shootings as gangs fought over bootlegging profits, those dont qualify as American families?

Those Americans werent the ones paying taxes and footing the bill for law enforcement neccessary to combat criminal syndicates flooded with bootlegging money?

Give me a break.

Prohibition doesnt work. Addicts find ways to get thier fix and violent criminals inherit hugely profitable industries. Luckily most people can look back and see how monumentally stupid alchohol prohibition was and hopefully they will eventually realize the same is true of all prohibition.

3 strikes legislation. Thanks for pointing that out. In fact, my own neighborhood cleaned up dramatically. I happen to be one of the people who post here that grew up in poverty and have seen the ugliness/desperation of drug/alcohol abuse up close and personal.

Addicts find ways to get thier fix not if they're never exposed to the addictive substance. Give ME a break.

"Luckily most people can look back and see how monumentally stupid alcohol prohibition was and hopefully they will eventually realize the same is true of all prohibition."

Funny, people argue that alcohol is a very harmful substance and, as such it's "hypocritical" not to legalize other drugs, :eyes: now you're saying legalization is an all out blessing?! I think people realize that prohibition was futile, and that legalization came with a price of it's own.

I was tearing a hole in your silly claim that prohibition fueled crime didnt harm average people. I fail to see what Clinton has to do with this.

"Funny, people argue that alcohol is a very harmful substance and, as such it's "hypocritical" not to legalize other drugs,"

Exactly. People know how stupid alchohol prohibition was, thus its even stupider that a less harmful drug is prohibited.

"now you're saying legalization is an all out blessing?!"

I said nothing, absolutely nothing like this. Do you have to put words in my mouth?

"I think people realize that prohibition was futile, and that legalization came with a price of it's own. "

Indeed prohibition is futile. Prohibition didnt stop alchohol use and it hasnt stopped drug use, all it does is put money in the pockets of criminals who use it to buy guns and shoot each other. When people realized how destructive and counter-productive alchohol prohibition was they ended it and stopped lining the pockets of violent criminals with alchohol money. Unfortunately the criminals could just turn to other prohibited drugs and the cycle continues.

Prohibition or no prohibition people are going to use drugs, but only under prohibition does this fuel a massive criminal industry.

a person who buys a six pack for a juvenile?

I'll have to mull that one over.

eom

Nothing in the post you replied to suggested that the punishment for selling various substances should be the same. You jumped to that odd conclusions all by yourself.

We've got laws on the books now for distribution of unlicensed pharmaceuticals with added penalties in some cases for endangering a kid. There's no need to do anything but to regulate properly and enforce the laws already on the books for those who go outside the regulations.

:P

They are kids, of course they shouldn't be treated like adults. They don't need to be able to go buy a gun or sign lifelong contracts at ten either.

Look over the stats I've posted in this thread and others of the sort, there are wild eyed dreamers out there but I'm not one of them. It's about taking a damaging and broken system and finding a way to control the damage. Control can't be so tight that we just end up with dealers still but they don't have to be any looser than we need them to be either.

I don't look at this as a "fix", or as something that happens overnight. We start just like Sweden did with the heroin program, small trial studies that are adjusted and expanded as we find things that work. Idealism doesn't lead the way, science and results do and all drugs aren't treated the same. They are treated the way experience and science tells us leaves us with the least problems. Others are just having better results than we are but we're resisting rather than exploring our options. Even ignoring minor use is less damaging than declaring war on our own users has been, though that still doesn't deal with the problems of use. Regulation can.

I don't think it should take priority, and I think it should be handled in a manner that isn't prone to sensationalism-- which is probably wishful thinking on my part. But to me, it is absolutely an issue that must be addressed, as the WOT is a disgrace.

But, I am not in favor of pushing for legalization (per se) until the American public shows an interest in such a pursuit.

I think that would be a much more accepted approach-- say, along the lines of the Denver proposal of allow 1 oz of mj for personal use. I think that would stop a lot of petty pocession arrests.

"ran" on know what I mean?

Following is from "berg" the father of the killed journalist running
against dems and exploiting the democratic weakness:

Rhodes: The War on Drugs gets little media coverage. Many argue that our nation has an endless list of higher priorities. Both major parties have been complicit in this seemingly never ending war. Yet to this date this year when combining federal and state dollars spent our nation has spent over 22 billion dollars on the war on drugs, we have arrested over 700,000 citizens for drug offenses this year, of which over 330,000 were cannabis offenses. What are your thoughts on the war on drugs, the implicit racism it stands for, and the continued arrest of responsible non-violent cannabis offenders?

Berg: I think that the War on Drugs is just another euphemism for the war on the poor in this country. I don’t think that there is a War on Drugs at all; I think there is a war on people. Once again if you have enough money to go visit a psychiatrist, or a regular physician, and get a prescription you’re allowed to be on drugs. If you don’t have enough money you have to buy your drugs from a person on the corner.And that’s the way it is.

Alcohol is a terrible drug, caffeine is a terrible drug, and nicotine is probably the worst drug of them all. And yet these drugs are legal, yet the drugs that the people on the street prefer are illegal. The whole difference between alcohol and marijuana is a matter of class, and some say racial preference yet I don’t think there is a racial preference but some people say there is.Marijuana has been cracked down upon disproportionately for years.

I don’t think that drugs are a good thing; I don’t think that drugs are a good thing at all. I personally do not take any drugs at all except for an artificial hormone and a vitamin, and I never have. Now that’s not to say when I’m sick that I don’t take what I have to take. But I don’t take aspirins from year to year, that’s how much against drugs I am, I probably haven’t had an aspirin or any drug in five years.

I really think that the War on Drugs has to really start with correcting the conditions that cause people to use drugs. We have to find a way to help people that are on drugs, but not by criminal prosecution. Of all the crimes that there are, taking drugs is the one that lends itself most readily to restorative justice. People can be cured of their desire for drugs, and we don’t try this but this is something we need to try to do.

Rhodes: So do you support the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana?

Berg: I support the decriminalization of all drugs. I support the decriminalization of the use of all drugs. I do not support the decriminalization of the sale of drugs. My plan would be, and I’ve thought about this a lot, to have the federal government take over the dispensing of all drugs. So, therefore, no individual could make a profit selling drugs, because the government would be the only one with access to drugs, and the government would sell them at a cheap enough rate to make enough money to fund rehabilitation programs.

So by the government selling drugs at a really inexpensive rate than there would be no way for people to sell drugs illegally. I think that this would solve a lot of problem. Most of the problems associated with drugs; the violence associated with drugs comes from the fact that it is very profitable to sell drugs.

If you made bicycles illegal and than someone sold them and a black market developed there would be violence around the sale of bicycles. And whatever the government makes illegal ends up developing in the black market, and many black markets themselves are what are dangerous.

Now I am not saying that drugs aren’t dangerous and I am not saying people should be encouraged to use drugs, but the government would not be pushing drugs they would be supplying them to the people who were incapable of getting by without them. And they would use the money from this to make rehabilitation programs available.

Rhodes: We are the sole modern western nation which does not offer national health care to its citizens. Why do you think this is?

Berg: First of all, let me say that this is a disgrace. The reason this is, is that there is a war going on, and I don’t mean the war in Afghanistan or Iraq there is a war going on in this country between the wealthy and the rest of us. And that is why a Green candidate is the only candidate, or another third party candidate, to represent those who are not wealthy, because all the Democrats and Republicans in government are wealthy and represent the interests of the wealthy.

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003824.html#more

Notice how this interview outflanks the democrats if there is any objective to become a populist
party championing the poor and underpriviledged.

That becomes more difficult.

There's your sound byte.

in such case.

rainforest. Something like 20% of the Colombian rainforest has been sprayed, plus the US government uses it as an excuse to fund paramilitaries. The whole project seems to be corporate welfare for Monsanto, Dyncorp, Sikorsky..and 3 other companies that lobbied for it.

as well as funding for treatment as opposed to putting people in jail. I think if someone could put out a plan detailing how much tax revenue would be generated and how much money would be saved by not fighting this preposterous war on drugs. It would be a good thing. I think in fact Carter when he was president supported decriminalization but that soon fell by the wayside when Reagan and his Moral Majority buddies took over. I think right now in this particular political climate the party might be hurt by taking a stand on it just because the "Maude Flanders...won't somebody think of the children" type of people wield a lot of power. Down the road and once we gain ground on the federal level, a frank and honest drug debate should be had.

Personally I think all drugs should be legalized, realistically I think that will never happen. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to do them...we are all adults here. At least we should divert all the money we are pumping into prisons and make good treatment programs. A junkie will never kick the habit behind bars.

It would bring a ton of current nonvoters on board, as well as being the right thing to do.

It's also the most demonized/politicized, because of one unique feature - you can grow it! It's a weed! Now is it bad for you? Well you're smoking a weed so you tell me. The nations around the world see pot as a threat to their economy; if you can grow a recreational drug for free, then why would someone buy a recreational drug (which is taxed)? A good analogy would be the fact that we HAVE hydrogen engines, but there is no money to be made so we still drive gas guzzlers.

Decriminalize it!

At the very least, Drug Education needs to be more realistic- not just "Drugs are really bad, they kill, and we will find you and put you in jail if you do them." Drugs are a lot more complicated than that. They aren't in most cases going to automatically hurt you or kill you. I really think if we taught kids the truth about drugs, rather than just scaring them, then if they still want to try drugs they will be better informed and more responsible about it. Kids who are going to do drugs, are going to do drugs. I would rather them be informed, and know where they can go for help if there's a problem.

I also think we should get rid of mandatory minimum sentences. Not all drug use is equal. Not all drug crimes are equal. A judge (or judge and jury) should be able to examine all the facts, and if they deem that a person doesn't deserve 10 years minimum, that they should go to treatment instead, they should be able to do that.

The federal government absolutely should stay out of state medical marijuana programs. And I think we should back that up.

I mean, I'm of the opinion that drugs should be legal, regulated, and behind a counter like alcohol and cigarettes. The fact is, a minor can get pot or any number of other drugs faster and more easily than they can get a bottle of liquor or a pack of cigarettes. And I say this as a 21 yr old who smoked a lot of pot and popped a lot of pills as a teenager- and also smoked cigarettes & drank. It was always easier for my friends and I to get our hands on pills and pot then it was to get cigarettes and liquor. Going on with my opinion- I believe we should be spending all the money we waste on the drug war, on REAL drug education for kids, and treatment for those who need it or want it. But, I think we should take it one step at a time.

The War on Drugs!!! We're winning.....stay the course!!!
When drugs stand up we'll stand down!!
Better to fight drugs over there then fight them here at home!!
Pass a constitutional amendment banning them!! :+

The Prison Industrial Complex is supplying huge windfalls for a few mega-corporations, especially with the recent boom of private prisons. Privatization is a means of socializing the costs and privatizing the profits and it needs prisoners to keep it going and keep the profit margins up. Hence, incredibly harsh and racially-biased sentences are meted out for non-violent drug possession.

Treatment works (demonstrably less recidivism than prison) and is cheaper for the taxpayer.

None of this is a secret but nobody talks about it. A majority of Americans have a dim view of the drug war and yet it continues to thrive without a peep from our representatives. Those lobbyists must be very generous.

People try to twist it into a debate of supporting or opposing drug use and that's not true. What we're doing simply doesn't work, nations that never declared war on their own users have done much better. If anyone is interested there's a 12 minute video with several ranking police officers discussing this issue. It's worth a look if you haven't seen it yet.

http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm

actually getting involved with the party at the local level. County party resolutions, state party resolutions, talking to representatives, getting bills introduced, and ultimately changing the national party platform and passing federal legislation. Ugh.

I'm a registered voter in South Dakota, from which I fled screaming many years ago. In the last few years, I've stayed there for a few extended periods and renewed some old acquaintances, some of whom are politicos and officials. Next week, I'll go back there for a few months, and I'll definitely be going to those Wednesday lunch-time party meetings down at the VFW.

South Dakota has a medical marijuana initiative on the ballot this year. Medical marijuana has never lost in any state where it's made it to the ballot, but South Dakota will be tough. There will also be an abortion rights initiative and, I think, a gay marriage initiative.

South Dakota has about the same population and demographic profile as North Dakota, but it has three times as many people in prison and more than twice the number of drug war prisoners. I'll be looking into just why that is while I'm out there.

it surely won''t be hard to do drug reform?

I think you start with:


That apeals to the states rights people.

Then you move to:


Those are reasonable places to go, although the right doesn't seem to care that we have imprisoned nearly 1% of the population. They don't seem to see this as a problem. :shrug:

The rest is pretty extreme and won't fly in the mainstream.

But I do like having Democrats take the lead on this stuff.

If we need our own issues, how about cleaning up elections? Most people recognize that there is a problem there.
How about campaign finance reform -- everyone is sick of seeing lobbyists influence congress.
How about cleaning up the media? Surely people can understand that the corporations that operate the NEWS should not be allowed to also be war-machine suppliers (profits).

Funny thing is, the majority of Americans are pro-choice.

I think the American people are a helluva lot more liberal, and socially libertarian, than anyone in the major parties (or the corporate media) wants to let on.

Trouble is, no one has offered them a clear choice on issues like the Drug War, now, have they?

tweak things that are pulsing volcanoes of going either way when they get in.

eom

our attention on issues like ending the war, the use of depleted uranium weapons, the environment, corporate control of Congress, rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, tax breaks for the wealthy (and for corporations), poverty in America, universal health care, and fair and open elections . . . among others . . .

The phony war on the people that use certain drugs affects almost EVERY issue that Democrats hold dear:

Gun Control - less illegal drug dealers = less guns on the street

Healthcare - drug use is a health issue, not a criminal one, no victim = no crime (and if you want to say the user is the victim, then let's only prosecute those that want to press charges against themselves)

Education - resources wasted trying to legislate appetites could be used for education

Regulation - current system mean ZERO CONTROL


But, let's face it, most Americans are ADD and will need a simple soundbyte way to look at it:

DRUGS ARE OUT OF CONTROL: TAKE CONTROL OF THE DRUG MARKET AWAY FROM THE CRIMINALS and REGULATE THE INDUSTRY!

It's that simple.

We could call it the Drug Control Act, which removes the market from criminals by legalizing, regulating, taxing, and educating.

See? It even rhymes!





ALSO; The drug war funds terrorists!!!

We could begin with a broad-based decriminalization of marijuana, accompanied by sentencing reform for all those caught with drugs, but not intending to distribute. We could then push forward a broader plan of legalization of harder drugs, along with drug education programs.

It'd have to be in a period of intense reform. And I doubt you can run on it. You have to reframe it as something like : "Effective Government"

100% of the money spent to fight drugs should go to education/prevention and treatment.

There was one episode where they invited about a dozen congressmen (presumably Republicans) to the white house press room and told them that if they complained about their new plans for treatment over prison, they would run ads showing that all of these congressmen's kids had been convicted of drug crimes and weren't forced to serve even close to the mandatory minimum sentencing because their parents were powerful. This is definately a tactic that we should use.

Drug dealers are businessmen. They are not motivated by an alturistic drive to supply people with drugs, and they don't give a f*ck about anyone else's morality. They are motivated by the law of supply and demand, just like any other businesspeople, and they are in business to make money as efficiently as possible, just like any other businesspeople.

By outlawing drugs, you drive the street prices up, which just provides drug dealers with an opportunity to make more money. They can either sell more drugs at a lower price per unit, or they can sell fewer drugs at a greater price per unit. Either way, they get paid.

Down here in Arizona, the police have been so successful at out-witting crystal meth cooks that they've virtually eliminated meth labs in Arizona. And what do we get instead? More powerful crystal meth being sold more cheaply because it's being manufactured wholesale in meth FACTORIES (literally) just across the Mexican border and smuggled up here by drug dealers who pay illegal immigrants to carry it for them. Globalization in action!

The only effective way to defeat them and actually win the war on drugs would be to out-maneuver them and pursue a course of action that will lessen the profitability of drug dealing. We could've done this pretty easily once upon a time, but unfortunately, it's WAY too late for that now. Every time one drug gets outlawed and the police find an effective way to combat it, they invent another drug to replace it. Every time components for manufacturing one type of drug are controlled, they find another way to manufacture that drug or another drug to replace it. That means they keep inventing more powerful drugs so they can sell (and carry and conceal) doses in ever-smaller quantities. That also means that they keep reverting to ever-more dangerous ways to manufacture them, because up until the easy ways to manufacture them were outlawed, they never would've thought to try to manufacture them the dangerous way.

As for marijuana being a gateway drug, it is. It's a gateway to getting used to breaking the law. It's a gateway to learning that the public school system lied to you when they told you it would completely destroy your life just like cocaine would-- and if they were lying about weed ruining your life, were they lying about coke ruining your life too? And it's a gateway to buying drugs from drug dealers who want you to keep buying drugs from them, and don't have any federal commission looking over their shoulder to ensure that they aren't lacing your weed with a more powerful drug to get you addicted and keep you coming back for more.

If we'd just left weed and other natural drugs alone way back in the beginning, and adults could've gotten hold of them any time they wanted without having to risk going to prison for it, how much incentive would we have eliminated for people to manufacture artificial drugs? But Pandora's box is open now. We can't turn the clock back and un-invent crack or crystal meth or ketamine. But we can still cut a lot of drug dealer's potential market out from under them by legalizing the sale of weed by liscensed business establisments. The U.S. economy is to the drug trade what WalMart is to mom & pop stores... or at least, I hope so. If we get into the business and write the rules to work in our favor, they can't comete.