Posted on 10/16/2005 10:26:23 AM PDT by neverdem
BEHIND BARS
A former police chief wants to end a losing war by legalizing pot, coke, meth and other drugs
SOMETIMES PEOPLE in law enforcement will hear it whispered that I'm a former cop who favors decriminalization of marijuana laws, and they'll approach me the way they might a traitor or snitch. So let me set the record straight.
Yes, I was a cop for 34 years, the last six of which I spent as chief of Seattle's police department.
But no, I don't favor decriminalization. I favor legalization, and not just of pot but of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, meth, psychotropics, mushrooms and LSD.
Decriminalization, as my colleagues in the drug reform movement hasten to inform me, takes the crime out of using drugs but continues to classify possession and use as a public offense, punishable by fines.
I've never understood why adults shouldn't enjoy the same right to use verboten drugs as they have to suck on a Marlboro or knock back a scotch and water.
Prohibition of alcohol fell flat on its face. The prohibition of other drugs rests on an equally wobbly foundation. Not until we choose to frame responsible drug use — not an oxymoron in my dictionary — as a civil liberty will we be able to recognize the abuse of drugs, including alcohol, for what it is: a medical, not a criminal, matter.
As a cop, I bore witness to the multiple lunacies of the "war on drugs." Lasting far longer than any other of our national conflicts, the drug war has been prosecuted with equal vigor by Republican and Democratic administrations, with one president after another — Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush — delivering sanctimonious sermons, squandering vast sums of taxpayer money and cheerleading law enforcers from the safety...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The war on guns: Joel Miller explains how drug cops are killing 2nd Amendment
Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
Remember, it's for the children!
This guy sounds anti-pharmacist.
His proposals are far to reasonable to ever be implemented.
Fine. Let them use whatever they want, if they're over 18, but only if they first obtain a permit. As a condition for getting the permit, they must provide DNA and fingerprint for identifcation, and that identification will be used to ensure that they never get one cent of taxpayer money. No medical care, no food stamps, no housing subsidies, no public education -- nothing. If they're dragged into an emergency room with an overdose, just stick them in a "pending" room next to the morgue. Same should apply to alcohol, which is no less a drug than all the stuff that's currently illegal -- drink yourself into liver failure or into a horrrible car crash, you're on your own. And no using "I was too drunk or drugged to realize what I was doing" as a defense for crimes they commit. And ONE instance of abuse or neglect of a child should result in immediate sterilization. I'm all for liberty, but I am not willing to pay the bills for people who exercise their liberty with profound stupidity.
If one dances, one must pay the piper.
I've heard many good arguments for legalization of narcotics. However, some of the things Stamper did at SPD leads me to think he may have been nipping at some of those drugs. (/s)
There should NOT, however, be free access to antibiotics and antivirals. These have a public health impact in which resistance and superbug development has the potential to affect lots of folks.
The most successful anti-drug program that America has ever had was under Nixon when he used 90% of the anti-drug allocation for treatment and only 10% for interdiction.
No benefits... no taxes, OK?
By legalizing drug use, we will make these addicts eligible to receive welfare benefits that a drug convictions now makes them ineligible to receive. If we legalize the use of crystal meth, the taxpayers can help kill these people off by providing them with the money they need to buy their drug of choice. The violence and damage caused by meth users should help pick up the slack and free time that law enforcement officers will have by not having to participate in the war on drugs.
This is a very important point - like paying out-of-pocket for emergency services and hospitalization if bad things happen when they use things they don't understand.
This is what those of use derided as loony libertarians (I probably qualify as such) claim as a primary conservative tenet - that we should be responsible for ourselves and with this responsibility comes the freedom of having some vicodin in our medicine cabinets to use whenever we decide it is needed. The MD witch hunt here in south florida has created a situation where you have to be bleeding from the ears before you can get a milligram of codeine.
Before we legalize over the counter heroin, why not legalize over the counter penicillin, Tylenol 3, etc. In other words, if the principal is "you can put whatever you want in your own body," why not start with non-lethal (when used properly), non-addictive prescription medications? Why does always go right to meth and crack?
By the way, one can be against both legalization and the "War on Drugs." Recognizing that certain behaviour is not easily stamped out does not require making it legal or going military over it. (sort of like we dealt with these things in the '50s)
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
But no, I don't favor decriminalization. I favor legalization, and not just of pot but of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, meth, psychotropics, mushrooms and LSD.
Reasonable? Not to me.
No. Your premise is wrong. If legal there will be no more financial incentive for all these methlabs. Without a black-market the gun runners lose their clients. No more turf wars and drug gangs will have to find other business models.
The legal stuff will be cheaper and quality-controlled so whatever junk is in the blakc market stuff is no longer an issue.
Will morons use it excessively and get sick? Absolutely just as it is now. But without the legal stigma there will be much greater opportunity to get treatment so that unfortunate folks can LEARN how to live drug-free. When an abuser gets some skills and knowledge then its all up to them - use soem discipline or perish. Its a darwinian thing.
Since you want to make a point of your personal creditentials, what do you do now? Do you smoke dope, or use any other illegal drugs?
It's too bad we can't get such answers from the police chief.
"I'm all for liberty, but I am not willing to pay the bills for people who exercise their liberty with profound stupidity."
That's actually a cogent proposal I've not seen before. Let people sign themselves out of the system - no free medical care or support if they use drugs. You know, that makes a lot of sense. Kids couldn't sign, but there's no reason an adult shouldn't be able to sign a waver for self inflicted acts.
The ONLY difference between a medication and a drug is governmental appoval.
Is legalized methedrine part of his program?
Taxes will be a LOT lower after we eliminate all the welfare schemes that support virtually all these people to one extent or another. And plenty of them aren't paying nay tazes to start with. As long as they're still functional, going to work, using public roads and public transportation, enjoying the protections provided by law enforcement, military defense, FDA etc., I don't see why they shouldn't pay taxes -- but those sorts of things ought to be the only things taxes are used for.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!! Legal unlimited access to crack, LSD and methedrine but not antibiotics!!! Why didn't I come up with this genius idea???????
Hmmmm. I am for legalization of pot but not of more hard core drugs. I am, however, against people with colds having to get prescriptions for your basic cold medicine, in a vain attempt to cut meth production locally (hence causing a reason for more of it to come over our border.)
And another right on and amen .... BTTT
I agree with you that we should try to keep meth production jobs in America. /sarc
I don't think that is a good precedent to start. If we're going to make people sign off on free medical care or support if they lead an unhealthy lifestyle - what's next? Making someone sign off when they order a Big Mac? When they buy a dozen Krispi Kreme doughnuts? Do you really want the government reaching that far into your personal life?
I am just irritated that they make it harder for an ordinary person to get cold medicine. I am lucky that I just get to go to a pharmacist (if the pharmacy is open) to get my medicine, but some states (Oregon, for example)are requiring a prescription from doctors for it. Do we really all need to have to run to the doctor when we have a cold or mild allergy problems? I am for hard-core cracking down on meth production, but the unintended consequence is that when local production goes down, it causes increased importing of it from over the border- and that causes its own problems.
Oh, baloney.
Prohibition lasted for 13 short years, and alcohol consumption was at its lowest at the start of Prohibition.
Drugs have been illegal now for almost 70 years with no end in sight.
I work in LE and understand the WOD negatives far outweigh any benefits. Until I'm told dope is legal I work within the hypocracy and strive to do the best I can.
legalize drugs-why not do away with all laws-pimps and jackasses use drugs to get people hooked every day-they could have whole city blocks looking for drug money hell whole small cities-its bad enough law enforcement is piss poor-judges and lawyers are worse-let everyone enforce their own laws-i would be glad to hang or shoot drug dealers in my neighborhood and you know if people took care of their own we would have far less deadbeats drawing government checks-what little tax money collected could be used by the people that pay it-we could have city states again where only your people are allowed-have areas just for drugies and prostitutes and chilmolesters(hell give them their towns)-put the lesbians and homos in their own towns(want last to long unless you let them have your kids)
Fine. Let's do that first, then we'll look at legalizing drugs. Agreed?
"When they buy a dozen Krispi Kreme doughnuts? Do you really want the government reaching that far into your personal life?"
Well, they already reach far into your life with the War On Drugs making it impossible to get even cold medicine now. But why not add Big Macs to the sign off? You could just go online and check off the risks you were willing to take without government support.
Look, its a new hypothetical for me to ponder. But, the usual argument for, say, seatbelt enforcement is that non-seatbelt wearers cost everyone else money. What if they didn't, through some personal responsibility checkoff.
My daughter-in-law personally saw people buy drugs from the gathered scores of drug dealers with their $2,000 government issued debit cards following Katrina.
The only difference is how much the government can profit from it, through regulation and taxation.
Over the counter antibiotics, i.e. antibacterial and antiviral drugs, would result in critters with antibiotic resistance and useless drugs for people who need them.
Another name for methedrine is methamphetamine.
"sign a legally-binding document clearly stating that they revoke any claim that either society or the government has any obligation to pick up the pieces"
I agree, but I'd extend the rule to cover mountain climbers, sky divers, remote wilderness campers in winter, people who try to sail small boats across oceans, etc. In other words, if you take risks that most of us consider unreasonable, you're entitled to do so, but you're on your own if things go wrong.
You are abso-tootley correct.
It is not easy forcing people to take responsibility for thier actions. It's worse to have others make decisions for you "for your own best interests".
If we are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves, how are we capable of making decisions for others?
It is a good thing to encourage good health as in the ever-present antismoking campaigns. The same will be done for folks who let drug abuse affect their ability to thrive.
Norm Stamper was a different kind of chief: visionary and progressive
Leftists love their "progressive" label.
Try generic, over the counter, 1000 mg of vitamin C, and 50 mg of diphenhydramine, aka benadryl, both twice a day once symptoms start. It works for me. I usually only have to take it a total of three doses or less, i.e. 3000 mg of viatmin C and 150 mg of diphenhydramine, total. I happen to be a doc.
"In other words, if you take risks that most of us consider unreasonable, you're entitled to do so, but you're on your own if things go wrong."
Yeah, but exactly who gets to decide what's reasonable?
That's why I say just cut the gvt safety net completely away. Let helping people return to the domain of volunteer and relgious groups. Each one of those groups can and should excercise their own judgment in terms of who's worthy and who isn't.
It is one thing to punish actions that have harm others--DUI for example, as we do for alcohol--but who the hell are you to tell me that you'll be the judge of what pleasures and benefits I can have, and that you'll take my tax money and conditionally disburse it to me after sampling my DNA? And how will your invasive plan of pleasure and mind control be part of smaller and less intrusive government?
The War On Drugs was a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
More murders and thefts were created by it than anything else.
It was like a business growth plan for government.
If someone wants to get illicit drugs now, they can.
So, in what way has the War On Drugs been constructive?
When the Depression hits, we're going to have to jetison it because it's too expensive to afford, and we'll have to take away the pensions of the enforcers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.