Posted on 05/21/2009 10:27:30 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
DENVER -- Admitting that it may be "political suicide" former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said its time to consider legalizing drugs.
He spoke Wednesday to the Lincoln Club of Colorado, a Republican group that's been active in the state for 90 years. It's the first time Tancredo has spoken on the drug issue. He ran for president in 2008 on an anti-illegal immigration platform that has brought him passionate support and criticism.
Tancredo noted that he has never used drugs, but said the war has failed.
"I am convinced that what we are doing is not working," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedenverchannel.com ...
Continuing as we are perpetuates everything that is wrong with BOTH the WOD and the Welfare State.
Prohibitionists always always always use hysteria to fuel fears that rarely, if ever come to pass.
Alcohol prohibition was such a great idea that it was repealed but reinstated in new forms.
There were fewer drug related problems before the WOD than we have now.
With the current system one must risk arrest to seek help with addiction. Some choice.
Or one can become ‘legally’ addicted, still be a highly funtioning citizen, but become a criminal in order to feed a habit initiated by medical treatments.
Addicts are known for tolerating doses that would sometimes kill first time users. It doesn’t surprise me at all that Rush’s doses were well beyond what any normal pain patient could tolerate.
Any reason hr should be a criminal for it?
400,000 of 50m (1880) vs. 380,000 of 76m (1900)
Several things of note...
Firstly, the 1880 census specifically states that it omits the Chinese and American Indians completely. It attempts to calculate Chinese and Indians living among whites, placing the number at some 150,000, though it is my opinion that number is grossly underestimated, especially among the Chinese.
Considering the vast establishment of Chinese industry (fishing, fish processing, wineries, laundering, road building, every form of labor, etc) in California, and the fear of the "Yellow Tide" which prompted the Chinese Exclusionary Act of '82, after which another 300,000 were still allowed to immigrate by 1900, I would consider the number to be much higher than the census claims. This is a critical population when considering addiction, especially to opiates, and the distribution thereof, particularly from the west.
Even if the numbers are correct, if Asians are not included in the addiction rates, the rates are sure to be skewed favorably.
**Note that I am not attempting to blame the entirety of opiate use/distribution upon Asians, but they certainly own the western distribution routes, and high addiction rates among Asians are undeniable.
Secondly, While the general population grew immensely (1880-1900), one must also consider the distribution capabilities, and where an addict might support his habit - This renders large swaths of the continent invalid, as timely delivery was simply not to be had, and the expense could not be paid.
To get a reasonable statistical analysis, I would imagine one would have to break down populations according to where delivery was easily available - Seacoasts, close proximity to railroads, main roads, or major rivers, and then apply that to the addiction rate... A near impossibility for me to do - Especially when considering that all records must be weighted for a nation in tremendous flux:
We are talking about the period directly involving the transcontinental railroad and the civil war. How any records could be remotely accurate would be a wonder, indeed.
And lastly comes the awareness of addiction in the medical sense, and in the public mind. We are dealing with a period of time during, or just leading up to that awareness. We are barely into the use of hypodermic needles here (mid 1800's).
It takes a while for addiction to rear it's head as a public phenomena beyond the confines of the red light district. IFAIR, the Civil War was the first broad use of morphine as medicine (actual pain relief for wounds), at least in the US.
I am much more comfortable looking at time after the knowledge of addiction is in place, and the present distribution system is reasonably accounted for. That need not include the interstate highway system, but would needfully include expanded railways, expanded road systems capable of automotive traffic, and maybe even air service.
That puts us firmly in the industrial age rather than comparing agrarian and industrial norms. It also places us past all racial disputes and into a more efficient census system, with better over-all statistical analysis.
Otherwise, one might be better served using a single coastal metropolitan area as a statistical norm, or comparing and averaging several to get the needed data.
Good post.
As I said before, I do not support the idea of continuing as we are.
Alcohol prohibition was such a great idea that it was repealed but reinstated in new forms.
I am not particularly fond of treating alcohol differently than other narcotics.
There were fewer drug related problems before the WOD than we have now.
Bullcrap.
With the current system one must risk arrest to seek help with addiction. Some choice.
Bullcrap sommore.
Or one can become ‘legally’ addicted, still be a highly funtioning citizen, but become a criminal in order to feed a habit initiated by medical treatments.
Bullcrap even more, yet.
Addicts are known for tolerating doses that would sometimes kill first time users. It doesn’t surprise me at all that Rush’s doses were well beyond what any normal pain patient could tolerate. Any reason hr should be a criminal for it?
So are mine. My condition is managed so that I don't do damage to my body. That is why a doctor's care is required. I am bounced between narcotics to reduce my dependency to any particular one, and to let my body "rest up" between doses of each kind. And I am *not* a criminal for it. I can even have medical marijuana, all legal like. All I have to do is ask.
BELIEVE me. Rush's problem was his addiction, not his pain. There is no reason to double up doctors other than addiction, and I know it. I have never been denied pain relief, at any level, once the doctor is satisfied the pain is there.
And I am not being critical of Rush, either. There but for the grace of God go I.
Not exactly. The 400,000 figure from 1880 is opiate addiction only. The 380,000 figure from 1900 combines opiate and cocaine addicts.
If it were an apples to apples comparison, the decline would have been even more dramatic.
Even if the numbers are correct, if Asians are not included in the addiction rates, the rates are sure to be skewed favorably.
Let's say you are correct about the 1880 numbers, and that Asians were left out of the addiction figures. That strengthens MY case. Let's assume that there were 300,000 Chinese in the US in 1880, and that 10% were addicted to opium. That means an even bigger decline between 1880 and 1900 when drugs were freely available.
Secondly, While the general population grew immensely (1880-1900), one must also consider the distribution capabilities, and where an addict might support his habit - This renders large swaths of the continent invalid, as timely delivery was simply not to be had, and the expense could not be paid.
Once again, you strengthen my case and weaken yours. There was more distribution capability in 1900 than 1880. Despite that, we had a decline in addiction in the years 1880-1900 when drugs were freely available.
I meant to add the following in my prior post. You said the drug laws "delivered an almost immediate decline in addiction."
How can you claim that when the decline had already been underway for a couple of decades?
Unfortunately, it is 2009, not 1776, we are in a post-14th-amendment world, and whether you agree or disagree with the interpretation of that amendment, and I know which side you fall on that, we can fight all we want but at some level the constitution does mean what the supreme court says it means.
And you have to realise that not a single justice on that court would agree with your position. You may be right, but even the most conservative of the judges that we have appointed thinks federal criminal statutes are constutional. I may be happy if some day they rule otherwise, but I’ve got enough things to worry about without tilting at windmills.
I have no idea. I’m not a constitutional scholar. If I read the decision, I’d have an opinion, but I haven’t.
The commerce clause seems like one heck of a loophole, but as with the “federal crimes” discussion, I don’t think there is a single justice on the court that would reverse the use of the commerce clause for federal regulations. So it’s another windmill to tilt at, unless you really think you could replace 5 justices on the court with new justices that are MORE CONSERVATIVE than the most conservative on the court today.
I will cede the point, though it is incidental to my overall thrust.
That means an even bigger decline between 1880 and 1900 when drugs were freely available.
I am sorry, I was not clear. I happen to know that Asians were excluded from the 1880 census from prior research (although they were footnoted therein, as it is the footnote I found to be ridiculous enough to remember). I do not recall if they were included in the 1900 census, though I would suspect they were not, as they were not considered citizens until much later. What I intended to suggest is that the Asian community may well be withheld completely. Without counting that community, any numbers are skewed favorably, and falsely.
300,000 Chinese in the US in 1880, and that 10% were addicted to opium. That means an even bigger decline between 1880 and 1900 when drugs were freely available.
Outside of my obvious disagreement as posted above, I believe opiate use to be much higher that 10% in the Chinese community. They were largely male, away from wives and families, forbidden to associate with white females, forbidden to leave the confines of "Chinatowns", worked like dogs, treated like slaves, and sent most of their money back home. What do you suppose they did with their free time?
Once again, you strengthen my case and weaken yours. There was more distribution capability in 1900 than 1880. Despite that, we had a decline in addiction in the years 1880-1900 when drugs were freely available.
Accepted, sort of. You forget the war. Most of the south was decimated. distribution probably remained largely the same there, as construction was more likely reconstruction. There were also the gauge problems with the railroads - much of that was happening during this time too, as the nation settled on a standard railroad width. More reconstruction. And a lot of where the railways were going were repeating and replacing canals and rivers, so while travel was certainly becoming faster (it is for this reason that I will accept your premise), It was not necessarily becoming more widespread.
Let's not forget that "nation in flux" thing either. The west was opening up. Huge population shifts were heading west for free land and open spaces. That doesn't translate into more distribution for many years. Anything west of the Mississippi that wasn't near to the railroad had terrible freight and coach service.
As I said, without an in-depth study of all of these factors, I am disinclined to take the numbers at face value.
I meant to add the following in my prior post. You said the drug laws "delivered an almost immediate decline in addiction."
How can you claim that when the decline had already been underway for a couple of decades?
I question the validity of the overall data, as I have said. For that reason, I don't look at a decade at a time, but the overall trend.
If one considers the data to be generally indicative, there was a problem with drugs in this country particularly from tinctures and elixirs (early 1800's), though not persistent, as distribution was very limited. However, it grew exponentially after the introduction of straight cocaine, opiates and morphine, and the hypodermic needle, along with greater distribution networks (mid 1800s). This seems to have come to a head with the indiscriminate use of morphine in the Civil War for medicinal pain relief (1865), and a real, broad discovery of what addiction is in the following decades (1870-1910). Thereafter come the laws to limit the use of narcotics (1914+), and a dramatic decline of their use all the way into the '50s.
It would seem to me that the serious addiction problems (by virtue of numbers addicted), at least those broad enough to cause social notice, came after the civil war. The problem persisted until laws were enacted (laws generally being reactive in nature), and then the use thereof went dramatically downward, even as real distribution capabilities (Automobile, real rail expansion, real paved road expansion, super-highways, flight) became readily available.
The "second wave", as it were came with liberalism, and the psychedelic '60s. Again, it took some decades for the problem to become bad enough to become a serious problem - Serious enough for a societal reaction, and so we have the WoD (again, laws are reactive).
To strengthen my point about believing early addiction numbers, consider how hard it is now to count serious addicts, who are generally transient, landing in flophouses or living on the street... They are generally countable primarily due to welfare roles and law enforcement. Considering their transient nature, and without the modern (albeit socialist by nature) methods, How does one suppose those addicts were tallied way back when?
You know, that’s exactly what the liberals say about the Constitution. “It’s 2009 (or whatever year) and that musty old thing doesn’t FIT any more, just like my old dress.”
However, this is NOT a liberal forum. It is for CONSERVATIVES. If this is how you feel, your place is three doors down on the LEFT.
Amazing! Don't you think you should have at least a basic understanding of the FDR era decision that trampled the Tenth Amendment, and opened the floodgates for an expanded fedgov?
So it's another windmill to tilt at, unless you really think you could replace 5 justices on the court with new justices that are MORE CONSERVATIVE than the most conservative on the court today.
You must be unaware of Justice Clarence Thomas's numerous writings on the Wickard Commerce Clause. Here's a good place to begin your education:
J. Thomas, United States v. Lopez, 1995
-snip-
Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Taken together, these fundamental textual problems should, at the very least, convince us that the "substantial effects" test should be reexamined.
-snip-
That still gives you a very substantial decline. I think the decline from 1880 is better explained by addicted CW veterans passing on. By 1925, the ones still alive were in their 80s. You have no basis for assigning causality for the decline to drug laws.
Let's compare 1900 to 2000 using the additional 200,000 Chinese opiate addicts for the 1900 figure. The combined addiction rate in 1900 would have been about 0.77% vs 1.6% in 2000. That's a doubling despite nearly a century of prohibition!
In 1900, the market was above ground, so stats were easier to gather. They kept track of opium import figures, for example. My understanding is that doctors offices, pharmacies, mail order companies, police depts. etc. were surveyed in arriving at the addiction numbers.
Regardless, that DOJ article was supposed to be making a case for prohibition, and they cited numbers which demolish their own case. Even a severe waterboarding of the statistics can't make them say that prohibition succeeded.
The shameful addiction rates in Iran, Singapore, and the US compared to the Netherlands further bolster the case against prohibition reducing addiction.
It's outside of town, too. Your formulation that drug abuse is a product of the urban "party scene" is largely true of crack, ecstasy, and maybe even heroin, but pot is pretty much universal, and meth is actually more prevalent in rural areas than in cities.
See http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/map_lab_seizures.html for a map of meth lab incidents in 2008. New York state had nine; Missouri, 1,471.
This site, citing a study from the University of Nebraska, suggests that rural meth users start younger, are more likely to shoot up and drink heavily in conjunction with meth, and are more likely to exhibit meth-induced psychosis.
Your mental picture of "rednecks" having a little rowdy fun with booze and a little weed is out of date.
Drug legalization is self-funding. For starters, you take a $300 billion underground economy and subject it to taxation. States spend about $6 billion a year incarcerating non-violent drug users; that would pay for a hell of a lot of rehab.
A legal, regulated drug trade would pull the funding out from under criminal organizations that, in many cases, are more like armies than gangs. It would remove the rationale for asset forfeiture that turns the presumption of innocence on its head. It would undermine the case for no-knock warrants, intrusive bank reporting requirements, and an array of other assaults on individual liberty justified by the "war on drugs."
I share your philosophical unease at adding to the welfare rolls, but in pragmatic terms, the money is already being spent on incarceration. I support a solution that spends less money to achieve a better outcome, even if it means shifting the funds from the "law enforcement" to the "social welfare" line item on the budget.
Again, The decline I am interested in is from 1920/30-1960. Whatever the numbers were prior to that point are incidental to me. They show a broad trend, and serve to show why our fathers felt th need to enact laws against drug use (laws are reactive).
That still gives you a very substantial decline. I think the decline from 1880 is better explained by addicted CW veterans passing on. By 1925, the ones still alive were in their 80s. You have no basis for assigning causality for the decline to drug laws.
Again, I don't really care. I reject the veracity of the numbers. Spot me all you'd like. We are pulling numbers out of the air. The idea that reasonable records could be kept at this point in time, especially in the West, or even in the South, is nonsensical to me.
I can accept the idea that decline was from early attrition of war vets, which sounds reasonable, but it really doesn't matter to me. It is the overall trend, as I said before, that is better to go by.
Let's compare 1900 to 2000 using the additional 200,000 Chinese opiate addicts for the 1900 figure. The combined addiction rate in 1900 would have been about 0.77% vs 1.6% in 2000. That's a doubling despite nearly a century of prohibition!
Now, see... There you go again... Your proposition ignores the blatant fact that drug use was nearly non-existent by the 40's, and certainly by the 50's. There is nearly a generational full-stop to drug addiction between the two points that you insist upon using as data.
And during that serious decline, almost all states had laws against cocaine use, morphine use (other than doctor's care), and some 25+ states had laws against the use of all opiates, not to mention federal law, and international treaties specifically against hashish, opiates and cocaine.
Since those laws were enacted beginning in late '00, and solid declines were being experienced by the '20's It sure looks to me as though the decline is directly attributable to the institution and enforcement of those laws.
Also during that time, when drug use was nearly gone, real distribution by way of real rail expansion, paved roads, automobiles, ocean-going diesel ships, and airplanes all came into being. Logic would dictate an increased availability, by leaps and bounds, yet drug usage and supply went plummeting downward despite the obvious advantage in distribution.
Unless you can show me a good reason to overlook the very obvious drop in drug use between your points of reference, particularly (circa) 1930-1960 where drug rates were exceedingly low, I must reject your premise entirely.
It looks to me, as I have explained, like a first wave, second wave scenario, rather than a continuous data set as you would surmise. Furthermore, for a good while, the laws you seek to decry seem to have had good effect.
Let's take a different approach. Let me ask you this: What motive do you suppose our fathers had for enacting state, federal, and international treaties at that time?
You were the one who brought up the Chinese and tried to argue that it skewed the numbers. Now you are uninterested. And no, we are not pulling numbers out of the air. We are using DOJ figures from their website. You accept the numbers that you think make your case, but you ignore the same source's numbers when they go against you.
I can accept the idea that decline was from early attrition of war vets, which sounds reasonable, but it really doesn't matter to me. It is the overall trend, as I said before, that is better to go by.
The DOJ gives you a 100 year trend, but you'd rather confine your focus to a selected 30 year period. I'd say 100 years of data is more of an overall trend than the 30 years that you cherry pick.
Your proposition ignores the blatant fact that drug use was nearly non-existent by the 40's, and certainly by the 50's. There is nearly a generational full-stop to drug addiction between the two points that you insist upon using as data.
Unless you can show me a good reason to overlook the very obvious drop in drug use between your points of reference, particularly (circa) 1930-1960 where drug rates were exceedingly low, I must reject your premise entirely.
The article doesn't provide any numbers for the late 20s through the 30s. It leaps ahead to the low numbers of WWII. I think a better explanation is that most young men were in uniform, including black Americans. At the age when most take up the habit, the cycle was broken. And since you are apparently accepting DOJ numbers in this time period, the article says that the number of addicts increased from between 20,000 and 40,000 in WWII to 50,000 to 60,000 in the mid 50s. That's about a 50% increase.
Since those laws were enacted beginning in late '00, and solid declines were being experienced by the '20's It sure looks to me as though the decline is directly attributable to the institution and enforcement of those laws.
Did you forget about the passing of the CW veterans during this time? Besides, you already said you reject numbers prior to this time, so how can you even say there was a decline into the 20s?
It looks to me, as I have explained, like a first wave, second wave scenario, rather than a continuous data set as you would surmise. Furthermore, for a good while, the laws you seek to decry seem to have had good effect.
Yet, the post-WWII rise that began in the 1950s continued unabated for the next 40-50 years despite increasingly harsh laws and enforcement.
You can make excuses, but the laws did not stop the rise. You simply have no credible case.
(and then there are those pesky numbers from Singapore, Iran, and the Netherlands)
IMO, the same motives were at work for both alcohol and drug prohibition. This all came about during the Progressive Era. It was the time that gave us the 16th and 17th Amendments, as well as the Federal Reserve.
I'm sure there were a variety of reasons why people supported these efforts. Some were no doubt well-motivated reformers, some were meddlesome nanny-staters, and others, such as those in government, wanted a bigger government.
This is my speculation only - it seems reasonable that the hundreds of thousands of battle hardened young men, suddenly turned loose after a devastating war, could create problems. There was probably a fair amount of crime committed by veterans addicted to alcohol or drugs, but I have no numbers.
Since prohibition was a new concept in America, it was not unreasonable for the average citizen to think that if you outlawed drugs or alcohol, crime and other pathologies could be controlled.
That’s nice, but that’s not what I said. I’ll try one more time. The 14th amendment has been interpreted by the supreme court to give the federal government powers over the state that did not exist prior to the civil war.
You may disagree with this, but it has nothing to do with it being 2009, it has to do with the several states approving an amendment to the constitution, and that amendment being interpreted by the supreme court.
And like it or not, the current supreme court continues to consider this constitutional, even the most conservative on this court.
So, until you can give me some way we will appoint 5 members of the court that are more conservative than Antonin Scalia, the current situation will continue to be considered constitutional.
It may be cathartic to scream about how “it’s unconstitutional”, but you won’t accomplish anything doing so, and it doesn’t really advance the discussion. When the Lord comes back, the drug problem will be solved, but saying so doesn’t really advance the conversation either.
Thomas is the closest thing we have on the court to your position, and he is only there about half the time. I believe he was on the right side of the California case.
And no, I don’t think I should know an old court case by the name of the participants. If you told me what it said, I’d give you an opinion, but I am not a computer and I don’t know everything.
Personally, I’d like to see us allow a state like California to try this, before we take the entire nation down a path that might work great but might be a disaster.
It is unfortunate that we have lost the ability of the states to be the testing ground for different ideas of how to handle issues.
Alright... we can let this go for the moment and I will refrain from belittling you anymore. It contributes nothing to the discussion.
What I WILL maintain, however, is that the war on some drugs needs to END, and that right quickly. It is one of the top ten in the list of evil committed by government, alongside the war on gun owners, the war on incomes, the war on “poverty,” the war on property owners and so forth. ALL of these things need to be gone, folks need to QUIT trying to use the (deadly) force of government to control others’ lives and be concerned about what goes on in their OWN lives. Can we get an agreement on THIS much?
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.