Gun Control and the War on Drugs - A. Gregory

[publius]

I only seem silly at first glance.

 

[publius]

Hey! A new page!

Did I mention Raich and Stewart yet?

 

[2nd Amendment]

Where I seriously part ways with many of the posters herein is with the suggestion that we should all be willing to put up with any and all consequences to drug use as a small price to pay for our freedom.

And there it is again.

Do we "put up with" DUI's? Public intox? Drinking on the job? Shooting up the town? Brandishing? Etc, etc, etc? No, we have specific ways of dealing with each specific event and the person[not group} guilty of the act. Without exception I don't see anyone in this thread deviating from supporting the exact same methodology for drug use and users except those following the anti-gun/Prohibition style argument of centralizing power to deal with the issue in a GROUP/broad-brush fashion.

 

[mercedesrules]

However, I see legalization and/or decrimalization as bringing along a whole new set of unintended consquences with at least as serious negative ramifications on our society as what we currently experience with the status quo.

Like what?

Don't forget, it would be the re-legalization of drugs. They were legal for approximately 125 years. Most new "unintended consequences" would be due to other bad laws passed since 1915, or so.

I use quotes because I strongly suspect that most laws' consequences are intended. For instance, drug laws paving the way for more searches and financial info-gathering.

 

[The Rabbi]

One thing I've observed following this issue is that the different opinions seem to be over a difference in world view as much as over the details. One side seems to value security as the highest political ideal and the other values freedom the most.

This is a bad dichotomy. If you dont have security then you dont have freedom. Freedom is meaningless if you're hunkered down in your living room afraid of roving bands of neer do wells.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Freedom is meaningless if you're hunkered down in your living room afraid of roving bands of neer do wells.

But since this isn't what is being discussed or advocated here and has no possibility of becoming the norm it's kind of pointless here, isn't it? Or perhaps not, since hyperbole's point is to support a stance that otherwise can't stand on its own.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The folks who value security will justify almost any infringement on individual liberty.…

I recognize and understand their position. It is valid, if odious, in my opinion. I simply want them to acknowledge that controls in areas where they desire security can and do lead to controls in areas where they desire freedom.

The history of firearms prohibition in the United States is inextricably linked with that of chemical prohibitions.

~G. Fink

 

[The Rabbi]

The DEA weighs in

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct071399.htm

 

[Old Dog]

Mercedesrules asks

Like what?

Are you serious? Have you done any research on the issue? Shouldn't our experiences with alcohol and tobacco be a warning? How about ... off the top of my head ... health issues with the attendent rise in health care costs ... increased numbers of drug-affected babies ... workplace problems ... black market (will happen, same as with tobacco and alcohol) ... impact on public schools and higher education ... Drug abuse will increase under legalization, some estimates up to another 20 million addicts ... AIDS and hepatitis rates will increase ... there will be a huge impact on the criminal justice system as well (just look at the numbers of alcohol-related court cases now). There is evidence that violent crime would in fact rise with an increase in the numbers of cocaine users ...

People bring up Switzerland as an example. Did you know that the number of addicts quickly quadrupled when Zurich established its experimental free needle exchange program and gave over a park for addicts to use? Zurich's burglary rate AND the number of prostitutes both skyrocketed.

 

[fallingblock]

I suppose that the point is....

"The history of firearms prohibition in the United States is inextricably linked with that of chemical prohibitions."
*********************************************************


While what Gordon writes is unarguably correct-

The fact is that comparing the two

(use of recreational substances and RKBA)

as desireable freedoms is simply not appropriate.

They are two very disparate phenomena.

And once more, I absolutely do not support the WoD.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Neither are desireable freedoms for many people. In fact, no freedom is desireable to all people.

~G. Fink

 

[longrifleman]

Drug abuse will increase under legalization,

Probably true, and this gets us to an important part of the debate. Millions of people use drugs now, even with the risk involved. The true cost of legalization is the difference between current use and future use vs. the reduced cost of enforcement and interdiction. Legalization also removes the incentives to attack the BOR, at least with the War on (some) Drugs as a cover.

Will this give a positive benefit in the long run? I think the answer is yes, but there will be some trade-offs.

Remember, the costs for the people using drugs now don't really count as part of the debate because we are already absorbing those costs either way.

This is a bad dichotomy.

Is that anything like bad indigestion? I've got plenty of that.

If you dont have security then you dont have freedom.

Threats to your security can come from more than one direction. I'm much more afraid of the state overstepping it's authority to "preserve order" than I am of a few crackheads. Of course where I live I probably have better fields of fire than you do.

 

[publius]

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Speaks Out

http://www.leap.cc/publications/index.htm

 

[publius]

By the way, Old Dog...

Actually, Publius, you are correct; I seem to have attributed some of the sillier early statements in this thread to you. For the record, I share your concern about the increasing federalization of police powers

Would you mind terribly spreading the word among your fellow prohibitionists? As you've noticed, when I try to do it, they wind up hearing something I never said, and not hearing what I did say.

The precedents you set in the drug war WILL be applied to your firearms rights. It has happened before, it is happening now, and it will continue to happen. Civil asset forfeiture abuse is a great example. As argued by the drug warriors in the hearings on CAFRA, it is the kind of power that is necessary to fight the drug war. Why? Because "victimless" crimes are very hard to catch and prosecute. Before anyone screams, I mean victimless in the very narrow sense that, after a successful drug transaction, there is no "victim" who goes and complains to the cops, as there is after an assault or a murder. I do NOT mean that drug abuse is without negative consequences.

To have an effective prohibition policy, you're going to wind up with abuses like the use of civil asset forfeiture laws to punish crimes. Set that precedent in the drug war, it will spread to the gun grabbing war. It's trying now.

When someone like Bush comes along promising to get tough on drugs, remember what you are asking for before you happily vote for it. You're asking to stretch the commerce clause when it comes to your guns. You're asking for civil asset forfeiture to be used to punish crimes. Careful what you ask for.

 

[DRZinn]

So DocZinn has just solved the problem, which is to increase penalties and prosecutions.

For whom? I meant the penalty that naturally occurs (ie serious injury) from choosing to act irresponsibly (ie not wearing a seatbelt). DO NOT twist my words to support your position.

it seems to me that Publius, and others, are arguing that:

(1) Every citizen has a right to use any drug of his or her own choice, regardless of the consequences to themselves, their families, their community or society in general;

What consequences do you mean?

(2) This right to use any drug trumps the right of all other citizens to be safe from
(a) Potential violent behavior from drug users and

Yes. POTENTIAL violence is not the government's business to worry about. I could POTENTIALLY go out and start shooting people when my inhibitions are lowered by an excess of alcohol, but that doesn't mean I can't drink. If I DO go out and shoot someone, then THAT is when there is a problem, not when I take a swig of beer.

(b) Potential dangerous driving by drug users and

See above.

(c) Any criminal activity on the part of drug users attempting to procure money for drugs or the actual drugs; finally

Nope. Twisting my (our) argument again. If you rob someone, you rob someone. it doesn't mater if it was to get drunk or get high. Noone on this thread has advocated letting anyone get away with a violation of life, liberty, or property just because it was drug-related. Stop playing the blood-in-the-streets card you hate so much from the anti's.

(3) Society – and government – has no right to regulate or restrict drug use because
(a) We are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights and our bodies are thus ours to do with as we wish, and
(b) Fighting illegal drug use is a losing cause so we should just quit entirely since it’s expensive, causing our government to spend our tax dollars but more importantly, it has restricted too many of our other civil rights, particularly our 2nd and 4th Amendment rights, and

Absolutely correct so far.

(c) Any possible negative consequences to other human beings, communities or society in general as a result of any citizens’ drug use should be held inconsequential because of (a) and (b) above.

Not quite. See above.

 

[RealGun]

I wonder how much "legalization" would really change. Instead of DEA it would become FDA with some DEA powers. So called legalization would not occur in a vacuum. All FDA has to do is poison a few batches of street stashs to make users conscious of using certified supplies. Buying black market stuff becomes suicidal. I could be sardonic and say that might be a good thing, but I won't.

 

[Michigander]

The DEA say:

The legalization advocates are not telling the truth about the consequences of their proposal. It is not that they are purposely misleading Americans, but rather they are not providing all of the information necessary for us to make a sound judgment on the issue. The logistics of legalizing drugs are overwhelming. Take pharmaceuticals for example. Despite tough regulations and strict controls, these powerful and addicting legalized drugs remain the most widely abused drugs in the country. Surely the same would happen with legalized heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

(emphasis added)

 

[publius]

Despite tough regulations and strict controls, these powerful and addicting legalized drugs remain the most widely abused drugs in the country. Surely the same would happen with legalized heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

I must have missed all the Valium and Oxycontin related shootouts and thefts, but since they are dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine, surely those same things happen. Anyone got news links to them, so I can educate myself?

 

[publius]

The DEA also ask:

Given the fact that our record with cigarettes and alcohol is not very good, how will we limit the abundance of dangerous drugs to 18 or 21 year olds?

LOL! When I was an 18 yr old delinquent, I always found it MUCH easier to get a bag of weed than a bottle of liquor. My friends who sold weed just cared whether I had money. For some reason, that guy at the liquor store was all uptight about his license.

I have frequently asked drug warriors to interview current 18 year olds, to see whether this is still the case. They either don't ask, or don't like the answer, since none has ever gotten back to me on that.

 

[RealGun]

Despite tough regulations and strict controls, these powerful and addicting legalized drugs remain the most widely abused drugs in the country. - DEA quote

They may not get that concern for abuse would be something they would have to give up. They aren't listening to the arguments. It seems to me that the issues would be purity, legal supply, and payment of taxes. Concern for others' use would not entirely hide behind other provisions.

 

[The Rabbi]

I must have missed all the Valium and Oxycontin related shootouts and thefts,

You've obviously never worked in a pharmacy or other place that stores these drugs. Break-ins and thefts are a common problem.

 

[publius]

No, I haven't worked in that field. I'm sure they do have theft problems, but the level of criminality can't be anywhere near what it is in the illegal market. They might be pilfering pills from suppliers, but the suppliers themselves are not engaging in gangland style shootouts over turf. They're not using kids to sell the products to other kids. They're not working with hazardous chemicals in residential areas, or moving down the streets in mobile meth labs. Those kinds of problems occur in black markets, not legal markets.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am not sure what kind of point you are trying to make.
The legal drugs make their way from legitmate venues to the black market in numerous ways: employee pilfering, break-ins, doctor-assisted abuse, etc. I think the manufacture of, e.g. Oxycontin is sufficiently difficult to require some sophisticaced equipment and thus not conducive to small operations. This is not the case with meth, crack, and the like that can be made up in anyone's kitchen.
I think the director's point is that if we have a problem with drugs that are tightly controlled from supply to end-user then increasing the number of drugs available in that same type chain will increase abuse and violence. Unless we just abolish all drug laws and subsidize them to negligible cost.

 

[publius]

I am not sure what kind of point you are trying to make.

That black markets are characterized by more violence, more corruption, more seedy practices, etc. than are legal markets.

We're going to have one kind of market or the other. Given the gang violence, the corruption, the cost of prosecutions and prisons which could be better spent on violent criminals than on a guy who smokes a joint, and most of all the abuses of the rule of law such as stretching the commerce clause to the detriment of gun owners, employing civil courts to punish crimes with a lowered standard of proof, and all the other associated costs of keeping this black market around, I'd rather see a legal, regulated market.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why is it this debate is often cast as "the guy who smokes a joint in his living room Friday night after work"? How do you distinguish between that fellow and the 12 year old smoking a joint at school, or the crackhead smoking a pipe in some abandoned building? Or the guy who does cocaine and get paranoid and destroys the lives of his family? Or spends the family budget on drugs?
Is it really worth all the human suffering just so the one responsible guy can indulge his habit?