Posted on 03/01/2006 7:37:05 PM PST by winston2
WAR ON DRUGS A JOKE TO EX-COP
In Norm Stamper's world, the "drug store" is a place that is much different from what generally comes to mind.
The 28-year police veteran of the San Diego police department and former Seattle police chief wants to see all street drugs legalized, firmly regulated and sold just like we sell alcohol today.
And his "shopping list" includes marijuana, cocaine, heroin, even crystal methamphetamine.
"The more dangerous the drug, the more addictive and the greater the potential for health risks, the greater the justification for regulation," he said last week in a phone interview from his San Juan Island home.
Instead of making drugs more accessible, Stamper believes regulation would make availability far more difficult, especially for children and teens, who can get their hands on street drugs easier than they can on a six-pack of beer.
Drug regulation policies would make communities healthier and the jobs of police officers safer by removing the criminally-controlled black market, he says. The grow-ops, the meth labs, the gunfights between rival dealers would be gone if the profit motive disappeared.
"Drug traffickers would be out of business the day the ink dries on legislation on regulation," said Stamper.
The veteran cop developed his views by seeing what he calls the "futility of prohibition."
Stamper doesn't see much sense in imprisoning hundreds of thousands of non-violent people in U.S. jails, while perpetuating a system custom-made for traffickers and crime.
He makes it clear however, that he has no sympathy for drug dealers and he doesn't promote drug use. He does believe adults have the right to use drugs, but if their behaviour becomes irresponsible, they should be accountable, just as in cases involving alcohol.
Stamper, who has a doctorate in behavioural psychology, is a speaker for LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, LEAP an international group of current and former cops, judges, wardens and others who think the "war on drugs," is a colossal failure.
Stamper will be at the Abbotsford campus of the Fraser Valley University College tonight [5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m.], debating the issue of prohibition with UCFV criminology professor Dr. Darryl Plecas, and Abbotsford police chief Ian Mackenzie, who also teaches at UCFV.
Plecas was one of the authors of an extensive report commissioned by the RCMP on the marijuana industry in British Columbia.
Sorry, I've dealt with crack addicts and the last thing we need is more of them.
WOD ping
How do you suppose there will be more addicts?
There would be fewer addicts robbing people and stealing car radios to buy drugs. And fewer drug lords making billions of dollars.
A friend of mine was a crack addict.
When he quit I asked him how he kicked. He said kickin crack is easy, you just have to run out of money.
Legalization and heavy regulation won't change access to the drugs on the street. It will only make it more difficult to locate and prosecute illegal sources.
At the moment all sources are illegal, with the exception of MJ in some states.
However, I have taken to buying my antibiotics, antihistamines, and decongestants from veterinary sources.
When that dries up, I'll go to Mexico.
This has gone too far.
I don't understand where people come up with the fantasy that drug addicts will stop committing crimes to feed their addictions if drugs are legal.
I'll support total legalization of all drugs when gun laws disappear. That way the average citizen can help dump chlorine into the gene pool.
Personally I'm all for legalization of Marijuana as long as there are laws to deal with it like there are for alcohol. However crack, meth, heroine etc should forever be outlawed.
Wheter or not we are dealing with drug use wrong I saw this guy on c-span pushing his book. He is a feel good lefty. He also wants to ban guns is for big welfare programs and socialized medicine. He speaks in a whimpy voice like Christopher Shays.
How do you figure? If you can buy bud for $20 an ounce in a pharmacy why would you pay $200 to get it from an illegal grower? I don't see anyone selling booze on the street and I'm guessing that's because you can buy good liquor at a reasonable price in the stores.
You're 100% right about Stamper. He was an absolute failure as a police chief.
Reminds me of Oklahoma when it was "dry." All you had to do was know the number of a bootlegger to get anything delivered to your door at any time of day or night. The price was a lot less than I paid in Texas. After booze was legal I had to pay more and look harder to find it when I went to Oklahoma.
Making something illegal just creates a business opportunity for those willing to operate outside of the law. It can also be very profitable for the lawless as well as the lawmen.
If a drug dose in a state store goes, say, for 25 cents [well, maybe for a dollar], feeding an addiction would become so cheap that a life of crime would not be needed to support it. Also, as was noted, at such prices the addicts would speedily extinct themselves, to general happiness.
You either have to kill all the users or legalize. But we'll keep blowing tax money because people who have no clue about illicit drugs are hysterically afraid of others using them, even though it happens all the time.
Stupid Stamper surfaces again. He was the criminals and druggies best friend when he was in Seattle. What a disaster he was, and what a disgrace that he ever got a position of authority as a cop. He was a stupid Liberal thug in a police chief uniform.
"The first White Paper to be released by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University outlines the problems and the gaps in drug legalization and decriminalization proposals (Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, "Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box?" September 1995).
Dr. Herbert Kleber, CASA Executive Vice President and Medical Director, and Joseph A. Califano, Jr., CASA Chairman and President, are the paper's main authors. CASA is a think tank that studies substance abuse problems and drug treatment and prevention programs.
The paper states that legalization would create a "pediatric pandemic in the United States." "Drugs like heroin and cocaine are not dangerous because they are illegal, they are illegal because they are dangerous," the report says. "Legalization is a policy of despair, one that would write off millions of our citizens and lead to a terrible game of Russian roulette, particularly for children."
Although legalization is not the answer to the nation's drug problems, current drug policies do not give enough attention to drug and prevention programs, the report finds. The remainder of the report is organized around problems with legalization proposals:
Legalization will increase the number of drug addicts. Legalization would make drugs more available to children and adults. Surveys show that under the current system, drugs are relatively inaccessible. Legalization would decrease the public's perception of the risks and dangers of drug use. Economic theory dictates that legalization would decrease the price for drugs, which would increase drug use. The report cites the history of the crack epidemic to illustrate that marketing low-priced doses increases use. Heavy taxes on legal drugs would only create a black market for the drugs, complete with the associated crime and violence. Problems associated with legal drugs forewarn the problems of legalizing now-illegal drugs. Legalization would increase the number of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin addicts to a degree that they will equal current numbers of cigarette smokers and alcoholics.
Legalization would lead to more children using drugs. Children now have ready access to alcohol and tobacco products, showing that it is impossible to keep legal drugs out of the hands of children. Even if drug sales were highly restricted, the "forbidden fruit" situation would continue. The "stigma of illegality" is needed to supplement anti-drug messages and prevention programs.
Legalization would increase the number of hard-core addicts. Surveys show that hard core drug use fluctuates proportionally to availability, price, and stigma associated with use. Street-level busts keep down the number of hard-core addicts.
Legalization would increase drug-related problems and costs. Although legalization would produce a momentary decrease in the prison population as drug offenders are released, the long-term costs would be enormous. Over time, legalization would cause greater health, prison, workplace, and other social costs.
Legalization would increase crime. Drug-related violence is not necessarily related to the drug trade. Legalization might decrease drug trade and economic violence, but it would increase violence committed by those under the influence of drugs.
Our current drug law situation is not akin to alcohol Prohibition. Prohibition involved decriminalization of personal possession and consumption of alcohol. Sales of alcohol were outlawed. By the early 1930s, the public did not support Prohibition, but today the majority of the American public is set against illegal drug use. Alcohol Prohibition did not directly increase crime and did decrease alcohol consumption and alcohol-relate costs.
The government has a responsibility to take action on the drug problem to prevent addiction, which is a form of enslavement. Addiction causes the addict to surrender freedom. It causes harm not only to the addict, but society at large.
The successes of European legalization experiments have been greatly overstated. Policies and experiments in the Netherlands, England, and Switzerland have increased the number of drug addicts and have escalated drug-related problems and costs."
Other than those minor points, it's a great idea! /sarcasm
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.