War On Drugs A Joke To Ex-Cop

Media Awareness Project ^ | Tue, 28 Feb 2006 | Jay Bergstrom

[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.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

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.

Classic strawman argument.

So he's a disgrace because he got tired of locking up potheads and kicking down innocent people's doors all day?

[William Terrell]

I've dealt with crack addicts and the last thing we need is more of them.

How many people do you reckon are just waiting for crack to become legal so they can get addicted to it?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Booze is not a highly regulated substance. Neither is tobacco.

Both booze and tobacco are highly taxed and regulated, and in most cities, tobacco is outright banned.

Neither alcohol, nor tobacco are as highly addictive as most of the street drugs obtainable on the black market.

So we should legalize street drugs then because of this...right? You basically just shot your own argument down.

Heavy regulation implies prescriptions and monitoring. There will be a large number of users who would want to avoid such monitoring, and for whom the black market in such drugs will continue to service.

What market? Where would they go to? The illegal market would disappear. Addicts would have no choice but to be over a certain age, face criminal charges if they give drugs to minors, and buy the drugs from the pharmacy.

If anything, the street price will driven down because of the legalized competition. A lower street price on the black market might entice more off-the-books users to try the drugs and become addicted.

Hello? Have you even took basic economics throughout your publik schooling? Why would dealers risk their lives battling over turf and trying to undercut their rivals when the goobermint drives them out of the market?

[mancogasuki]

My take. Legalize it all. Then...

Make it on perscription basis only to keep it out of the corner stores to dissuaded your average joe/jane from doing the friday night corner store routine of "ooh...got my pizza, got my movie, got my six pack..and oh! hey honey, how 'bout some blow & bufo tonight?"....naturally...make it reasonably priced to kill the crime profit margins but tax the $hit out of it and use the proceeds to give the military, police & teachers a well deserved raise.

Tired of my (our) money going to fighting a lost cause.

[Turbopilot]

"Alcohol Prohibition did not directly increase crime"

I enjoy reading these threads but rarely post on them. This sentence of the report posted caught my eye, though. It's almost like reading a paper on orbital mechanics and coming across the sentence "the sun orbits the earth." When one sees something so insanely, laughably, and provably wrong in what is purportedly a scientific work, one is forced to question every other fact and conclusion contained in that work. Just something for y'all to consider.

[investigateworld]

>>>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<<<

Oh my, what an insensitive thing to say.

I Like It!!

[freepatriot32]

Alcohol Prohibition did not directly increase crime and did decrease alcohol consumption

anyone here that believes that please raise your hands.

[freepatriot32]

the war on drugs is a joke to everybody but the cops and politicians that are greatly financially benefiting from it both over and under the table

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[RHINO369]

There are more coke addicts in America now, than when coke was inside Coca Cola and sold in drug stores.

The truth is America imprisons millions of criminals who committed victimless crimes. Your argument to why we should ban drugs is because they are bad for people. How does throwing them in pound me in the behind prison help it? Hell they even win the war on drugs inside the prisons!

Heroin addicts can hold steady jobs, ask Rush, he hosted the biggest radio show while hooked on prescription drugs which are more or less the weakened cousin of heroin.

Drugs are illegal, and drug addicts cost us billions to punish, they rob, they fund legions of gangs who shoot each other over corners, killing innocent bystanders very frequently. If they were legal, we might have a slight increase in usage, but there won't be any gangs shooting each other up, they won't fund terrorists in Afghanistan and Columbia.

If I have to choose between addicts hurting themselves, or addicts killing innocent people, funding international criminals and murderers, I chose legalization.

Ironically there are alot of conservatives who laugh at drug legalization yet use the same logic to defend gun rights, that the pro legalization crowd uses.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

you said it all.

I don't think this WOD will ever end because too many people are making money off it and the underground won't let it be legalized.

[mugs99]

the war on drugs is a joke to everybody but the cops and politicians that are greatly financially benefiting from it both over and under the table

Bump

[Skywalk]

Huh? You can buy crack for less than you can a decent(but not great) bottle of liquor. Almost no one is sitting in their living room saying, "wonder what crack or meth is like?" Those that do are already dangerously close to becoming addicts because they don't have much of an instinct for self-preservation (of life and health.)

[goldstategop]

His point is people have always used drugs recreationally. And making criminals out of them simply overloads the court system and diverts resources to prosecuting serious crimes like robbery, rape and murder. Do we really want to allocate scarce prison cell space to casual drug users? Basically, if drugs were legalized, you'd treat drug intoxication the way you do alcohol intoxication. What we'd do is sanction inappropriate behavior, not the possession of the substance. I don't use drugs, smoke or drink alcohol but I understand why some people are drawn to them. With regards to drugs, we're never going to jail our way to a victory over addiction. You're asking human nature to change to the point where people just aren't tempted by a forbidden fruit. It can be argued that removing the forbidden status of drugs will remove much of the allure that now accompanies people's using them.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[tonycavanagh]

re ;My philosophy is in getting rid of the manufacturers/dealers the users will mostly dry up.

The death penalty will not deter dealers from dealing.

The moment they start dealing they are under the death penalty from other gangs, these dealer gangs walk with death every day as they fight and kill to protect there turf and to take over other turf.

The lure of the money is too great they would rather live 1 to 5 years with thousands of to 10s of thousands dollars than the rest of there life on a McDonald type pay check.

Every one who is killed is relaced by those eager to grab a slice of a very very lucrative pie.

[Beckwith]

Prohibition doesn't work, period.

Legalization would destroy the black market overnight and the organized crime that goes with it. So organized crime is against it.

The DEA would be sunset and large chunks of the Customs and Coast Guard budgets would be cut. So these federal agencies are against legalization.

The liquor and tobacco industries don't want the competition. So they're against it.

That's why you'll never see legalization. It has little to do with the drugs.

This officer knows what he's talking about. Legalization, whatever reasons opponents have against it, would provide control.

The government would know who the drug users are and what they use.

Abusers would be in the system and subject to arrest for abuse. Instead of incarceration in prison, abusers would be sent to treatment programs. The federal taxes collected from the sale of drugs would be used for substance abuse programs, incarceration, where necessary and reasoned anti-drug use programs.

People that use drugs WILL use drugs, no matter what laws the government comes up with. It's better to have a formal system of controls rather than the informal one run by drug lords.

[metesky]

Before the end of Prohibition there were illegal sources of booze on every street corner. Bathtub gin, stills in every patch of woods, border runners, Kennedy fast boats landing at Smugglers Beach, street shootings (Al Capone invented the drive-by shooting), speakeasies two to a block.

With the exception of a few hardcore back country families still cranking out moonshine, all that is gone. Imagine people shooting each other today over access to booze?

Relegalization and regulation along the lines of alcohol would be a good thing.

[LuxMaker]

[Quote]by Extremely Extreme Extremist:
What market? Where would they go to? The illegal market would disappear. Addicts would have no choice but to be over a certain age, face criminal charges if they give drugs to minors, and buy the drugs from the pharmacy.
[/Quote]
Just like kids would never drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or even do prescription drugs these days because they have to be over a certain age./Sarcasm
Now how would a pharmacy restriction change this?

[R. Scott]

"Drug traffickers would be out of business the day the ink dries on legislation on regulation," said Stamper.

As would a large number of LEOs, prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges and jailers. Some would find jobs with the drug equivalent of the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control – even if the drug enforcement were combined with the ABC more agents would be needed, but not in the thousands we now employ.
I doubt this will happen – far too many people still believe that whatever our Government says has to be true – because what government bureaucrat would lie to save his job?

[metesky]

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.

Kleber was deputy drug czar under Bill Bennet and has a vested interest in the "rehabilitation" racket.

Califano is a Healthist, doesn't think anybody should do anything, and also has a financial interest in keeping the WOsD going.

Reach a conclusion, write a "scholarly" paper containing foresaid conclusions and watch all the little statists and sheep ballyhoo it all over.

[metesky]

It's in the governments interest to keep us riled up and divided and the media carries their water for them.

As you go through life remember,
Whatever be your goal,
Keep your eyes upon the donut
And not upon the hole.