this is your war on drugs

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP really troubles me, and here's why. I don't like people using these arguments, because they're not commonplace.

Before you link up three or four stories to prove me wrong, hear me out. The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with recreational drug use? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest.

But lets be honest here, using arguments like the story in the OP are no different than rabid pro-choicers dragging out stories about twelve year old girls who were raped and inpregnated by their fathers. Does it happen? Sure! Statistically, what percentage of abortions are performed because of that reason? Less than 1%.

The statistics are almost identical for those incarcerated for prescription drug and marijuana offenses who were using for medicinal purposes. I'm against the war on drugs, but lets be against it for the right reason, and not drag out some strawman argument about a situation that is a statistical blip on the radar of the overall picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I was waiting for someone to make this argument, because I think it's something commonly used to justify all sorts of oppression, namely that the edge cases aren't important.

The edge cases are all that matter.

The drug war/presciption enforcement war itself is justified with an edge case, namely we must prevent the few people who will choose poorly from hurting themselves. And these few edge cases justify implementing a system that will crush a few innocents in its path but that's ok.

I say it's not ok.

I'd prefer to see a few cases of people making bad decisions for themselves than a few cases of the government tyranny.

Under no circumstances should a man like Paey ever serve even one day in jail, and this man should not be written off as collateral damage.

natedogg

PS and yes, there's plenty of cases like this and many many more. The drug war has resulted in untold numbers of terrible decisions by our government, Paey is one of thousands like him, but you suspected that when you wrote it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is an argument I can agree with. You're coming out, you've got an honest answer. No [censored]. You just don't care if idiots make bad decisions. That's acceptable, and a position I can agree with.

But do not come to me with all this "Lower Crime" "Less People in Prisons" "drug use will lower" [censored] because it's all [censored]. Drug use will increase slightly, crime will stay the same, the prison population will decrease for a while, then go back to the same levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

With nearly half of all prisoners in for drug convictions I' d have to disagree with you on that last point. Not to mention that by definition, crime will go down if you decriminalize drugs. Drug crimes account for nearly half of convictions so unless you think these people are going to suddenly just randomly pick new crimes to commit, I'd have to say you're wrong.

I agree that drug use will increase a bit. Hard to say how much.

Also, I never made any of those arguments you are complaining about but maybe you meant "you" in the abstract.

Lastly, it's not that i don't care if idiots hurt themselves, it's just that I don't believe that edge case is worth trading in for the edge case of a tyrannical drug war system gone overboard. Of course I care if an idiot hurts himself, I just don't think others should be jailed to prevent it.

That's just me though.

natedogg

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
unless you think these people are going to suddenly just randomly pick new crimes to commit, I'd have to say you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's precisely what I believe. The basic point is simple, everyone has to eat, and these people are not going to go to work, so they'll find other activities to provide for themselves, car theft, strong arm robbery, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I never made any of those arguments you are complaining about but maybe you meant "you" in the abstract.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I did. "You" referred to several other posters.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
If people want to do away with prescriptions altogether I see the "war on drugs" as basically a peripheral issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing away with prescription drugs would IMO mean a bring about a sea change in the way medicine was practiced in this country. If you eliminate the DEA, forfeiture of assets, etc., the things that the War on Drugs brought about that would IMO have far less impact on how medicine was practiced. True that in certain instances the War on Drugs does involve prescription drug usage but it seems to me that most of the time that's not the case it seems to me. Also many prescription drugs are not of interest to DEA and law enforcement types because there's little to no black market for them. So IMO the war on drugs is peripheral issue when we're talking about doing away with prescriptions, something that will completely change the medical industry in the U.S. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

I wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
If people want to do away with prescriptions altogether I see the "war on drugs" as basically a peripheral issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

To which you responded:

[ QUOTE ]
If they're not related, then why was Paey's home raided by a paramilitary swat team used for drug enforcement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made the point that stating something is a peripheral issue does not mean it's unrelated and explained why I believe the "War on Drugs" is peripheral to the issue of eliminating prescriptions altogether. In short I pointed out that you were wrong that I didn't claim the War on Drugs is unrelated and attempted to rectify your apparent confusion over what I meant in my statement. Gave it my best shot but apparently not good enough.



[ QUOTE ]
Are you actually asserting that you're ok with Paey going to jail but that a recreational user of heroin or a dealer of heroin should be descriminalized?



natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to read/hear both sides on this. Depends on what the evidence was agains Paey. As far as decriminalization of herion usage, not in favor of that.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP really troubles me, and here's why. I don't like people using these arguments, because they're not commonplace.

Before you link up three or four stories to prove me wrong, hear me out. The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with recreational drug use? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest.

But lets be honest here, using arguments like the story in the OP are no different than rabid pro-choicers dragging out stories about twelve year old girls who were raped and inpregnated by their fathers. Does it happen? Sure! Statistically, what percentage of abortions are performed because of that reason? Less than 1%.

The statistics are almost identical for those incarcerated for prescription drug and marijuana offenses who were using for medicinal purposes. I'm against the war on drugs, but lets be against it for the right reason, and not drag out some strawman argument about a situation that is a statistical blip on the radar of the overall picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I was waiting for someone to make this argument, because I think it's something commonly used to justify all sorts of oppression, namely that the edge cases aren't important.

The edge cases are all that matter.

The drug war/presciption enforcement war itself is justified with an edge case, namely we must prevent the few people who will choose poorly from hurting themselves. And these few edge cases justify implementing a system that will crush a few innocents in its path but that's ok.

I say it's not ok.

I'd prefer to see a few cases of people making bad decisions for themselves than a few cases of the government tyranny.

Under no circumstances should a man like Paey ever serve even one day in jail, and this man should not be written off as collateral damage.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO this is an example of exactly why the mandatory minimum system is so evil and should be abolished.


[ QUOTE ]
PS and yes, there's plenty of cases like this and many many more. The drug war has resulted in untold numbers of terrible decisions by our government, Paey is one of thousands like him, but you suspected that when you wrote it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post IMO. The people who are wrongly prosecuted and immorally punished are in the very high numbers. A few might still be too many, but huge numbers of victims of our criminal justice system is a tragic irony. The draconian and largely inflexible criminal justice system in existence today is one of America's greatest evils.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, Capone did gun down seven people with automatic weapons with their backs turned,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he did... all because they were causing problems for his blackmarket alcohol empire! Those seven people were killed by Prohibition. Al merely pulled the trigger. There is little question in my mind that the murder rate today is at least double what it would be if we didn't have the War on Drugs. Let alone the rate of thefts, muggings, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said, I'm against the war on drugs. I was addressing an earlier point, which is the basic mentality of people involved in that business.

I'm not sure what you do for a living, but lets work under the assumption that Bootlegging is a business, just like any other. Have you ever gunned someone down for getting in the way of your business dealings?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bootlegging is NOT a business just like any other. It's a BLACK MARKET BUSINESS.

As such, the participants in it are EXCLUDED from the "legitimate" state-provided dispute resolution mechanisms. Have you ever seen a drug dealer sue another for breach of contract?

Once they are shut out of the semi-monopolized (e.g. heavily subsidized) dispute resolution channel, violence becomes a much more attractive choice.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
unless you think these people are going to suddenly just randomly pick new crimes to commit, I'd have to say you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's precisely what I believe. The basic point is simple, everyone has to eat, and these people are not going to go to work, so they'll find other activities to provide for themselves, car theft, strong arm robbery, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

For drug DEALERS, maybe so; but not for drug USERS. Didn't you earlier state a statistic that 98% of incarcerated drug offenders were imprisoned for recreational drug use (which I take to mean, using drugs but not actually dealing drugs)? Therefore if drugs were decriminalized, released drug users would not immediately jump to some crime like car theft or armed robbery.

Imagine if, during Prohibition, alcohol USERS had been imprisoned to the extent which drug users are today. Wouldn't you look at that as a big "WTF"??? I can't believe most drug users would just go out and commit other crimes.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
So, in closing, I would love to get rid of the drug laws, but I would love to do that because I believe they are a waste of money and police resources, and not because I feel some sympathy for drug users, or that they have a natural right to use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain your belief in the natural right to prevent them from using?

natedogg

[fmxda]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to link you to another post in this thread that addresses the very points you make.

here

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that if you really truly just empower the doctors to make the call on prescriptions, anyone will still be able to get any pill they like, because many doctors will run their practice as a revolving door for any drug. There is no way around this, if the doctors hold the power.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely with this, you are saying that putting drugs in the hands of medical experts would result in a distribution of drugs that is no different than letting people self-prescribe?

Your argument hinges on this on assumption (you are saying doctors are corrupt -> they need oversight -> oversight is done by medical non-professionals -> whats the point of doctors) yet you take this as a simple fact with little explanation.

I might add that I'm not just talking about controlled drugs. Unregulated controlled drugs like narcotics/benzos might be corruptive to some prescribers if left solely to their discretion, but some people in this thread have argued for getting rid of the prescription system completely. And while I lean libertarian, I think that is a ridiculous stance to take.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
unless you think these people are going to suddenly just randomly pick new crimes to commit, I'd have to say you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's precisely what I believe. The basic point is simple, everyone has to eat, and these people are not going to go to work, so they'll find other activities to provide for themselves, car theft, strong arm robbery, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

For drug DEALERS, maybe so; but not for drug USERS. Didn't you earlier state a statistic that 98% of incarcerated drug offenders were imprisoned for recreational drug use (which I take to mean, using drugs but not actually dealing drugs)? Therefore if drugs were decriminalized, released drug users would not immediately jump to some crime like car theft or armed robbery.

Imagine if, during Prohibition, alcohol USERS had been imprisoned to the extent which drug users are today. Wouldn't you look at that as a big "WTF"??? I can't believe most drug users would just go out and commit other crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

While a good point, the main hole in your logic here is that very few drug users are incarcerated for any real period of time (more than a week or two) their first offense, unless they get a lunatic judge, which does happen.

Most people in prison for the offense of drug use are repeat offenders, often with a collection of charges which by themselves appear trivial, but taken together as a whole, you see the mindset of a criminal.

Now sure, you may be unfortunate enough to spend some time doing community service work for your bag of weed, and possibly paying a fine, maybe even spending 24-72 hours in the county lock-up, but anytime you encounter someone who has been to actual prison for an actual sentence of more than a year, 99% of the time they have other charges, sometimes drug related, sometimes not. OP's case is the exception, not the rule.

[fmxda]

[ QUOTE ]
Today we have the head of the DEA, local prosecutors, and politicians with more discretion over your medical prescriptions than your doctor. If you don't realize that the DEA is hounding pain practitioners then you're not paying attention.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am certainly aware that an audit by the DEA of pharmacists or doctors is a huge incentive to prescribe less controlled substances... but at the same time, I have my own personal beliefs about why society shouldn't have narcotics aplenty. So, I believe there should be some regulation of potent, addictive drugs.

But this is a side note to my prescription argument, and obviously I will have to agree to disagree with people who have different basic assumptions on what degree of drug availability society should have.