Baghdad? No. Chicago:
Nine people were killed in 36 shootings over the weekend in Chicago, reflecting what some community leaders say is a deadly breakdown in discipline among gang members after a crackdown over the past few years put many of their leaders behind bars.
“The older guys in the past looked out for the little ones. Now they’re all locked up,” said Nick Stames, a social studies teacher at Crane Tech High School on the city’s gang-ridden West Side. “There’s no sense of discipline in the projects. Everybody’s doing their own thing.”
Now there is growing fear that Chicago could be in for a long, bloody summer.
Quagmire! Will Barry propose an immediate withdrawl?
UPDATE: Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis sez “I blame teh gunzzz!”
Comment by Bender Bending Rodriguez on 4/24 @ 7:03 am #
No Blood For Deep Dish!
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 7:04 am #
Not only will he surrender, he will break bread with them prior to doing so because it is important to dialogue with these people. Hillary will follow with a press conference shortly thereafter promising to surrender quicker, and to spend even more money in doing so.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 7:18 am #
The War on Drugs is a quagmire, and the government should surrender. If we would legalize it, we wouldn’t have people trying to expand their market share with guns.
Comment by McGehee on 4/24 @ 7:25 am #
Right — they’d do it the way the pharmaceutical companies do: by giving away free samples.
And by hiring lawyers.
All in all, I actually find the guns more wholesome.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 7:25 am #
Ards – Remember last week when I said you were a reasonable person, that makes me step back and think about my positions from time to time? This is not one of them.
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 7:27 am #
The crack addict who bothered me (knocking at my door at 1 a.m, etc) for a period of three months do so NOT because crack was illegal, but because he didn’t have the money to purchase it.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 4/24 @ 7:29 am #
So we need to release the more experienced gangsters to bring discipline to the hood!
Sheesh.
Comment by B Moe on 4/24 @ 7:30 am #
But he can’t afford the crack because it is illegal. Nobody knocks on peoples doors and breaks into their homes for cigarette money. Give them all the free crack they want, let them get it over with quickly. I am tired of seeing these losers take so many innocents with them.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 4/24 @ 7:37 am #
How many of the dead and wounded are ALSO involved in the drug trade?
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 7:40 am #
Right  they’d do it the way the pharmaceutical companies do: by giving away free samples.
Do you honestly think that drug addicts are innocent dupes who got hooked on drugs because they didn’t know their long term effects? Please.
All in all, I actually find the guns more wholesome.
What you find wholesome is the attempt to force morality on people at the point of a gun, and pulling the trigger when they don’t agree. I don’t find that wholesome at all. Drug addiction destroys drug addicts. The addiction to using government force in the name of morality destroys societies.
That’s the road we are on, and the War on Drugs is just one small example. Having accepted the principle that that which is immoral must be illegal, that individual sins are a societal pollution that must be cleaned up, you have no argument against those who declare your materialism to be immoral and seek to coerce you. If the majority thinks you’re misbehaving, then the gun will be pointed at you. *click* Give your money to the poor and sacrifice your SUV on Nature’s altar, because this is the society you asked for.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 7:46 am #
Drug addiction destroys drug addicts. And brothers. And sisters. And mothers. And fathers. And neighborhoods. And communities. The destruction left in the wake is not limited to the individual drug user.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 7:48 am #
- “There’s no sense of discipline in the projects.”
- These damn young people just have no discipline at all. I blame it on the parents.
Comment by Salt Lick on 4/24 @ 7:50 am #
What gives? Chicago is the home of Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, billionaire Oprah Winfrey and Reverand Jeremiah Wright.
Reuben Greenberg would have cleaned this sh*t up by now.
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 7:50 am #
In Detroit, at least, most of the deaths surrounding the drug trade involve those directly participating. About a year ago, two youngish boys were killed (along with some adults) and everyone was outraged … but – shock of shocks- the adults (as well as the kids) were involved with drugs. Who would have thunk?
I don’t believe legalizing drugs will make the problems go away. Crack addicts still won’t be able to afford it (and will break into houses to steal shit) and the legal versions of the drugs will probably having nothing on the serious shit you can get on the street.
Comment by Darleen on 4/24 @ 7:53 am #
Ards
what the heck makes you believe that legalizing of drugs will makes gangs go away? Drug trade is just another avenue of income for gangs. They also generate income with autotheft, id theft, check and credit card fraud, prostitution and good old-fashioned extortion.
Geez, your hobbyhorse in this instance is as valid as the Chicago Chief of Police saying if only they could “crackdown” on the guns it would cure this.
Pingback by Obama, the War in Chicago, and More Gun Stupidity | The Sundries Shack on 4/24 @ 7:54 am #
[...] Darleen at protein wisdom who asks if Obama’s ready to call for an immediate withdrawal from the [...]
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 7:55 am #
Darleen, I saw some show about gangs and you are right – the motivation is quick and easy cash. The drugs are just a means to that end.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 7:55 am #
Alcoholism does that too, JD. No, wait. it doesn’t destroy communities because bartenders don’t shoot up the neighborhood over market share.
Comment by the wolf on 4/24 @ 7:55 am #
We need to give gangbangers shooting lessons. Every time they get into their little spats, some 12-year-old on a bicycle gets shot. Let them shoot each other.
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 7:56 am #
I’ll tell you, dodging bullets and drug addicts on the mean streets of Tokyo proved to me that it is indeed laws against drugs that are the problem.
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 7:56 am #
At least, that was the motivation for the young men featured.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 8:01 am #
Alcoholism does that too, JD.
Yes, Pablo, it does. Except for the shooting up the neighborhood part.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 8:02 am #
- The gang culture will always be with us. Hell Russia has even managed to turn it into a government of sorts.
Comment by alppuccino on 4/24 @ 8:02 am #
The world of legal drugs:
“Hey, hurry and go to the bank on Main Street. The teller is totally high on crack and she’s giving a thousand ones as change for a ten.”
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 8:02 am #
What’s sad, though, is that these young men look to gangs for male figures. Not fathers. THAT is what is truly fucked-up about this situation. This issue isn’t so much about drug laws, but what happens when children don’t have fathers.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 8:04 am #
It used to do that too, back when it was illegal. Prohibition is an object lesson.
Comment by alppuccino on 4/24 @ 8:05 am #
“Doc, are you sure I should take morphine for my headache?”
“I do. I’m on it right now……….now let’s see, where did I put that anal probe.”
Comment by McGehee on 4/24 @ 8:05 am #
Wow. About 95% of what you read in my comment was from inside your own head.
You do know we’re supposed to be intentionalists, right?
Comment by Darleen on 4/24 @ 8:06 am #
Ards
BTW… just what legalization are you proposing? Because not all street drugs will or can be “legalized”. Do you believe that meth should be legalized? Have you ever seen the PET scan of a meth user?
So we legalize…say, pot and the opiates. There will always be some one cooking up something new – and very dangerous – on the streets because some people will do anything to get “high” in a new way. Part of it is the high, part of it is the excitement of doing something illicit.
Comment by ppppPablo on 4/24 @ 8:07 am #
Damned straight, Carin.
Comment by Darleen on 4/24 @ 8:07 am #
What you find wholesome is the attempt to force morality on people at the point of a gun, and pulling the trigger when they don’t agree.
Ards…so, buddy, when you traveling to Texas and taking that up with their CPS?
Comment by McGehee on 4/24 @ 8:10 am #
One interesting thing about the repeal of Prohibition is, the government right away taxed the little producers out of business, and the corporations got control again. Maybe I should read “corporate shill” into Ardsgaine’s support for drug legalization?
Comment by alppuccino on 4/24 @ 8:10 am #
“Meth for dessert again?”
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 8:10 am #
BTW… just what legalization are you proposing?
And for what ages?
Comment by Ric Locke on 4/24 @ 8:15 am #
Ardsgaine is right about one thing. If you support Government intervention into social problems, you have no beef when that tool is used against you. The constant is goons with guns. Whether the guns are pointed at crack dealers or SUV sellers is an implementation detail.
Unfortunately we are ‘way too far down that road to reverse course. “Now I have waded so deep in gore/The way back is as long as before.” Just try to keep all those high-minded, for-their-own-good declarations in mind when the SWAT team raids your house looking for contraband CO2 emitters, hmm?
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 8:15 am #
Drug addiction destroys drug addicts. And brothers. And sisters. And mothers. And fathers.
If you put that gun in the hand of the brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers, would they use it on the drug addict? Would they tell him to stop or be shot? No, not unless he were actually threatening their lives. Let them deal with the misery that accompanies having a drug addict in the family in their own way. They can cut him off from the family to limit the hurt, or they can try to save him through rehab. That’s their choice. We don’t need to shoot the guy or lock him in jail on their behalf unless he’s doing something that is an actual violation of someone’s rights.
The destruction left in the wake is not limited to the individual drug user.
It’s limited to the individual drug user and those who invest themselves in trying to save him.
The one exception would be his children, and if there’s abuse or neglect there, they should be taken out of the home.
Comment by McGehee on 4/24 @ 8:17 am #
This thread is a perfect illustration for why people like Semanticleo and steve have to come here and stir things up — ’cause we’re all in such perfect, lockstep agreement on everything, you know?
Comment by McGehee on 4/24 @ 8:18 am #
Cold.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 8:18 am #
- Earth to Jody. Getting rid of a weapon, among so many to choose from, would have as much effect as another coat of paint on the window casings of a brownstone. Nature finds a way.
- Its the endless “if we only” thinking that helps this problem NEVER make any headway.
Comment by Cowboy on 4/24 @ 8:25 am #
Carin:
In Detroit, at least, most of the deaths surrounding the drug trade involve those directly participating.
I drove through Detroit last summer, wow.
Is it possible that there’s little collateral left to damage?
Comment by geoffb on 4/24 @ 8:27 am #
“Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis sez “I blame teh gunzzz!—
I might be wrong but I was under the impression that quite some years ago the possession of all handguns was banned in the City of Chicago. Therefore there are no guns there to blame. Chicago has also been run by fine upstanding liberal Democrats for generations. They have taxes on most everything and wonderful expansive social welfare programs. How on Earth can there be any problem with guns and violence in such a Heaven on Earth. It should be Paradise right? /sarc
Comment by Percy Dovetonsils on 4/24 @ 8:28 am #
“Getting rid of a weapon, among so many to choose from, would have as much effect as another coat of paint on the window casings of a brownstone. Nature finds a way.”
I used to be a gun control supporter, until I realized that we’ve outlawed various drugs for years, and yet I could easily buy some through the black market after just a few phone calls. So if you agree that gun control is a fool’s errand, why not the same for drub control?
Do I have any bright ideas on the issue? No – all the options are bad ones.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 8:31 am #
what the heck makes you believe that legalizing of drugs will makes gangs go away? Drug trade is just another avenue of income for gangs. They also generate income with autotheft, id theft, check and credit card fraud, prostitution and good old-fashioned extortion.
But those activities are a much smaller part of their trade, and for a very good reason. Those activities do not find support among the wider population. Everyone ask yourself this: How many drug users have you known over the years? How many of them did you report to the cops?
I’m guessing that the answers to those two questions are going to be something like several and none. If so, then ask yourself why. If they had been stealing cars, you would have reported them. People might report a crack house or a meth factory, because those are magnets for real crime, but they don’t report individual users.
Without the complicity of the wider population, crime does not flourish. The drug trade flourishes because a lot of people think that it’s none of their business that their neighbor likes to get high. They’re right.
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 8:31 am #
While there are empty neighborhoods … there are others that are filled with people. I could show you both.
Actually, the empty hoods are probably the safest. In many areas, whole blocks are gone – and the land is returning to the wild. I think we should support urban farming movements. There are creative solutions to many of our problems. To bad government is in control of the “solutions.”
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 8:32 am #
The destruction left in the wake is not limited to the individual drug user.
It’s limited to the individual drug user and those who invest themselves in trying to save him.
And those that share the road with him, or work the line with him, or sit between him and money.
Comment by thor on 4/24 @ 8:33 am #
Barack Obama is the Sheriff of Chicago, who knew.
Comment by narciso on 4/24 @ 8:34 am #
The punchline; CNN says Detroit; well the suburbs anyway, are among the six
best places for a real estate recovery.
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 8:36 am #
For the most part, people DON’T care that people like to get high. I actually know a lot of people who smoke pot, and not one of them has ever run into any legal trouble. I even knew a rather big small-time dealer. He’s not in prison either. Drug laws aside, most people seem to get along with their smoking and selling just fine.
I got REALLY pissed, though, when my neighbor decided to have her drug dealer stop in front of MY house for her to do her business. My kids were outside playing at the time. For that, I WOULD stick my noise into the situation.
I’m mostly against drug use because many drug users of fucking morons who don’t care about anyone but themselves.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 8:36 am #
- “I think we should support urban farming movements.
- Sure. I can see a country wide movement, backed by Congress, and oceans of tax dollars, Hillery and Obama promising to be more pro active than each other.
- Wonderful idea. Guess what the first crop would be,
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 8:38 am #
Woo Hoo, narciso. I still have my Detroit house to sell. It’s in a nice neighborhood. My neighbor only occasionally uses the spot in front of my house to buy her drugs. But, in her defense she doesn’t have a car. What’s an addict to do?
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 8:48 am #
BTW… just what legalization are you proposing? Because not all street drugs will or can be “legalizedâ€Â. Do you believe that meth should be legalized? Have you ever seen the PET scan of a meth user?
No, but I will take it as a given that meth is poison. One might be able to make a case that selling poison for human consumption is fraud. Then again, I don’t believe that meth addicts get that way because they don’t know the consequences. If you want to stop self-destructive drug use, then you have to address the reasons why some people choose to commit suicide in slow motion. Each high is a small death that gets them closer to the real thing. That they want to die is the problem, not that there are so many methods available to achieve it.
So what drugs would I legalize? All of them.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 8:55 am #
And for what ages?
Adults only. Children are already brain damaged*. We have to fix that before we let them make the big decisions.
Comment by MarkD on 4/24 @ 8:57 am #
Maybee, The problem I have with your reasoning is that people who want to do drugs are already doing them. We do work the line with them and share the road with them.
This “war” has been going on for my entire adult life – since the Vietnam era. It’s not working. After half a century, isn’t it time to try another approach?
I don’t advocate drugs or use them. My family has suffered a couple of tragedies related to them. At what point do we say this isn’t working, and the collateral damage to society and our liberty is too much?
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 9:03 am #
Maybee, The problem I have with your reasoning is that people who want to do drugs are already doing them.
That isn’t really my reasoning, I’m just disputing the idea that drug users only affect themselves and the people that may try to help them.
This “war†has been going on for my entire adult life – since the Vietnam era. It’s not working. After half a century, isn’t it time to try another approach?
It’s the society that isn’t working. The drug “war” is alive in other countries that have very low crime rates. The difference isn’t the drug laws, it’s the society.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 9:05 am #
- Ok. So we legalize drugs, and gangs become legitimate businesses. Now, with boards of directors, and stockholders to mollify, we find the quality flagging, along with rising costs. Mergers further dilute quality leading to yet another upsurge in nuisance suits for the lawyers. Then, since the corporate legacy involves street families, the Unions will move in, with all that means. Order shall be maintained. The difference. “Problems” will be handled more discretely, with bodies distributed in widely spaced dipsey dumpsters. Capitalism comes to the drug world.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 9:05 am #
One interesting thing about the repeal of Prohibition is, the government right away taxed the little producers out of business, and the corporations got control again. Maybe I should read “corporate shill†into Ardsgaine’s support for drug legalization?
Sure, I guess. When you catch me advocating sin taxes.
My grandfather was one of those small time producers. He never had any problem competing with the corporations since he lived in a dry county, but those revenue agents and sherrif’s deputies could be a bitch. Some of them anyway. Some of them would call him up, tell him that some busybody had reported his still, and ask him how many days he needed to finish his run before they came out and busted it up.
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 9:10 am #
Think of all the schools we could build from an illicit drug tax ….
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 9:11 am #
If you want to stop self-destructive drug use, then you have to address the reasons why some people choose to commit suicide in slow motion.
Ards – Yeah, we gotta find those ROOT CAUSES dood, just like 9/11. I think I might have one answer – I wanna get fucked up, I’m in control, that shit’s not gonna hurt me.
I think that’s one I hear a lot. How ’bout you Ards. I talk to a lot of users every day.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 9:16 am #
Maybee, The problem I have with your reasoning is that people who want to do drugs are already doing them.
Mark D. – That’s a load of crap. There are plenty of people who do not because of fear of consequences – testing at work being a perfect example.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 9:16 am #
- “Think of all the schools we could build from an illicit drug tax ….”
- Well yes, but that would be “lgal” drugs taxation.
- I can picture whole blocks of poppy fields, and otherwise vacant lots awash in 7 foot hemp plantings, We could even provide subsidies for unused city properties.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 9:38 am #
Ards – Yeah, we gotta find those ROOT CAUSES dood, just like 9/11.
Getting high is not a violation of anyone’s rights.
9/11 was an act of war.
I don’t see the parallel.
I’m all for getting at the root causes of 9/11 though. I just wish we would do it faster.
Here’s a parallel for you: Accepting a perpetual state of war against “terrorism,” instead of destroying its state sponsors now, will lead to an erosion of individual rights over time. As Jonah Goldberg perceptively points out in Liberal Fascism, fascism has to maintain a perpetual state of crisis in order to retain power. Whether it’s the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, or the War on Global Warming, the idea is to present an imminent crisis that will justify putting society on a war footing, shifting power to the executive, and justifying the suspension of individual rights.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 4/24 @ 9:41 am #
“I think we should support urban farming movements.”
Only if they’re growing pot.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 9:44 am #
- Ards. Cite one example of any individual eights you woke up this morning and found missing.
- Or I would settle for a single instance of an innocent, emphasis on “innocent”, citizen who has lost a single “right” since 9/11.
- That seems simple enough.
- The “imminent crisis” ploy comes in all types of packaging for distribution.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 4/24 @ 9:48 am #
Ards, reporting a user wouldn’t do much good. Use of drugs is not a crime.
Comment by Ouroboros on 4/24 @ 9:48 am #
One day this war in Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran(?) will be over and there’ll be a bunch of Spec Ops types out of work… I say we utilize that labor pool.. imbed them with the gangs… train and equip the gangs with automatic weapons and antipersonnel explosives (surplus).. Then make bogus MySpace pages for each gang and use them to dis all the other gangs.. then we stand back and let the gang problem sort itself out….
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 9:51 am #
And those that share the road with him, or work the line with him, or sit between him and money.
I’m not arguing that we should legalize DUI, forbid drug testing, or legalize theft. The first and third should be obvious. As for drug testing, I believe that companies have the right to set conditions for employment. I don’t have a problem with a company that sets a zero tolerance policy on drug use, whether they feel it necessary for the type of work, or whether they just don’t want to employ people who do drugs. The jobs belong to the company, not the public.
Comment by Jim in KC on 4/24 @ 9:53 am #
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Comment by Jim in KC on 4/24 @ 10:02 am #
BBH, is that a serious question?
The 4th Amendment was slowly killed off in service to MADD and the “War on Drugs” long before 9/11 took place.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 10:06 am #
- Oh yes. the terrible loss of rights owing to MADD. I’m no longer at liberty to drink myself shit aced, run my car into a crowd of kids at a bus stop, and have the “right” to expect some lush of a local small town judge to shine it on.
- Fuck people who drive and drink. Period.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 10:08 am #
- Or I would settle for a single instance of an innocent, emphasis on “innocentâ€Â, citizen who has lost a single “right†since 9/11.
“Will lead” is what I said. I think Bush has shown restraint in comparison to what he probably could have gotten away with. We allow presidents more leeway during war time than we do during peace. Do you expect the next president to be as restrained? What about the one after that? See my point?
I’m not arguing against the war, I’m arguing against making war on a concept instead of on a country. We need to know the conditions of victory so that we will know when we are no longer on a war footing. By declaring war on those countries, including Iran, that have been attacking us for the past 30 years, we could stomp the crap out of them, demand unconditional surrender, have a real occupation where we hand them a copy of our consitution (“here’s your government”), and end the war.
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 10:08 am #
I was disputing this line of yours: The destruction left in the wake …It’s limited to the individual drug user and those who invest themselves in trying to save him.
That is untrue.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 10:11 am #
It is nothing new to most of you when I relate that I have much experience in this arena. I battled a nasty addiction to drugs, specifically cocaine, before a trip to rehab. I managed to kick the powder, but then proceeded to go on a decade plus long bender to make up for it. It nearly cost me my family, wife, and daughter. After a month long inpatient program, countless meetings, and daily effort, I remain clean and sober today. For the life of me, I cannot think of a good reason to legalize drugs. At the same time, my addiction did not care about the legal status of the drug. When it was time for that next 8-ball, I was going to get it. Period. My drinking seemed different, but served the same purpose. I still admire those aliens that can drink and not become addicts. I will never be one of them. Now, back to making fun of the French …
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 10:14 am #
You rock, JD.
Comment by McGehee on 4/24 @ 10:14 am #
All this, because Ards overreacted to my one comment about what would be likely to happen if drugs were legalized (and, yes, my snarky suggestion that at least someone trying to kill you should be up-front about it).
My point, which of course he missed in his effort to pick a fight with a cartoon character, was that The Lessons of Prohibition™, offered as proof for why drugs should be legalized, are far more nuanced than that.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 10:16 am #
- “See my point?”
- No. I don’t see your point. No rights have been lost to date, and with the vertual army of “guardians of all that is Constitutional and right (and gives the trial lawyers as many loopholes to push their guilty fucking defendants through as possible) you have about as much chance of actually stamping on anyones rights as Sharpton has of swearing off the race card and chasing ambulances.
- It just isn’t going to happen, and if it did, and the Commies over at the ACLU weren’t all dead, the case would hit the Supreme within a week.
- In other words, its another “crisis” that makes for good politics.
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 10:18 am #
Obviously we need a memo from Rush or Karl Rove’s replacement about how we are supposed to think about this issue. What we are lacking is that lock-step mentality in regards to the War on Drugs. I’m gonna go put some tin-foil on my head and await instructions.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 10:18 am #
- Oh yes. the terrible loss of rights owing to MADD. I’m no longer at liberty to drink myself shit aced, run my car into a crowd of kids at a bus stop, and have the “right†to expect some lush of a local small town judge to shine it on.
I’m not sure what Jim’s point is in regard to MADD, but due to the War on Drugs we now have the RICO act which allows the government to seize the assets of a person accused of a crime without first proving that he is guilty. It was hard to argue against it when it was being applied to mafia bosses, but now they’ve stretched the definition of “organized crime” to include anyone who commits an alleged crime in an organized way. It now includes any sort of business related activity that the state deems criminal. All they have to do is make an accusation, seize your assets, and squeeze you until you cry uncle. They can get a plea bargain with just the threat of a RICO prosecution.
(There, McGhee. I’m earning my rep as a corporate shill. Any corporations that want to pay for this service can contact me through my blog. Just be advised: I’m not on board for the bailouts.)
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 10:20 am #
I’m not arguing that we should legalize DUI, forbid drug testing, or legalize theft. The first and third should be obvious.
Geez Ards, it’s unclear what you are advocating. We’ll have laws in certain cases, blood level test for different drugs for different activities – that should be fun to establish, hillarity ensues. I want high school field trips for student to shoot up, with parental supervision of course.
People determine our laws through our elected representatives. Right now, the overwhelming majority of the population feels that most drugs should be illegal. The fact that you have trouble dealing with it is your problem, not society’s. Work to change peoples’ minds. Your assertions that only the individual user is affected is ridiculous on its face and only shows your ignorance of the issues involved.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 10:20 am #
- RICO is a disaster.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 10:21 am #
Thanks, MayBee. I will forever be in debt to Better Half because despite some wicked tough love, she stood with me, and gave me the opportunity to be a father, husband, son, brother, and friend again.
Comment by McGehee on 4/24 @ 10:21 am #
Ards is still arguing with the cartoon character, I see.
Do continue. I find it amusing.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 10:27 am #
JD – Perhaps if you’re up this way we can check out some adult day care together and some loaded hot dogs.
Comment by Challeron on 4/24 @ 10:27 am #
I may be missing the point, but I seem to recall noted ultraliberal WFBuckleyJr also proposing legalizing drugs, in much the same way as Ardsgaine states.
Also: Maybee, perhaps I’ve also misunderstood about Tokyo: I read something somewhere about “Yellow ties” that the police pretend don’t exist; and also that those same police can enter your home at any time and search without warrant just to see if you are a “good citizen”.
I have to admit, I’m rather astonished at the debate here; I must have serious comprehension problems.
(Or else, y’all are talking in PW Code again….)
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 10:28 am #
I was disputing this line of yours: The destruction left in the wake …It’s limited to the individual drug user and those who invest themselves in trying to save him.
That is untrue.
But you’re adding in actions that would be illegal in any case. We were talking about the destruction of the drug use itself, not the destruction of driving under the influence. We can agree on the latter, and agree that it should be illegal. If you’re just going to outlaw anything that can lead to tragedy, though, then we should outlaw driving too. That would be more to the point, since not every accident happens on account of drugs or alcohol. It would also be easier to control, since it’s harder to conceal.
(Cue the Rush music… “My uncle has a country place…”)
Comment by Techie on 4/24 @ 10:32 am #
I don’t like MADD because they’ve basically become a neo-prohibition group with ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY ™.
I think that some de-criminalization may be in order, but Pfizer and BristolMeyers-Squib are never going to make black-tar heroin. Production will be limited, thus supplies will stay low and prices won’t drop as much as the the 100% legal crowd thinks the will.
Jimmy’s brother up on the state highway out of town can only turn out so much smack a week……
Comment by Techie on 4/24 @ 10:33 am #
“thinks they will”
(Preview is not my friend, it is my sworn enemy!)
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 10:34 am #
JD – Do you know many recreational crack smokers? Most of the ones I talk to quickly became much more than recreational.
Comment by Jim in KC on 4/24 @ 10:34 am #
You don’t think it was illegal to do what you’re describing, BBH? Come on.
Ever look at the stats for the drunk-driving checkpoints? They’re insanely ineffective and completely in violation of the 4th Amendment. Like that pesky part about probable cause and warrants and stuff.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 10:36 am #
daleyrocks – Will be in the Windy City in August for the Cardinals/Cubs series.
If by adult day care you mean strip clubs, count me in ! ;-) Actually, the closest I can to a relapse was some blonde “dancer” in Dallas who licked her nipples, poured powder on them, and jammed those bolt ons in my face, while promising to do things to me that would make a Thai Madam blush, if only I would drink Jaeger out of her coochie. Or, maybe that was just a dream …
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 10:37 am #
At the same time, my addiction did not care about the legal status of the drug. When it was time for that next 8-ball, I was going to get it. Period.
Congratulations on kicking the habit, JD.
For the life of me, I cannot think of a good reason to legalize drugs.
To remove the violence due to the drug trade. If people are going to do it anyway, there’s no reason that their money should be going to those people most willing to kill for market share. You may have bought your coke from a friend who wouldn’t hurt a fly, but somewhere up the distribution chain, your dollars ended up in the pocket of a cold-blooded killer.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 10:38 am #
- Almost all of the laws designed to try to stop people “per-drinking”, like the breath-alizer car controls, ect, are unconstitutional.
- But you know what. If it saves one innocent person from being slaughtered by some drunk driving asshole, I don’t give a rats ass. We lost an entire family, father, mother, three kids, to some shit head back a number of years ago. He was on “probation” for his 5th DUI.
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 10:38 am #
Ardgaine- I am not making the argument that drugs should be illegal because they can lead to DUI and workplace accidents.
I am making the argument that whether legal or illegal, the damage done by drugs is not limited to the drug users and those that choose to help him. That was your statement.
On the drug legalization argument, I see absolutely no evidence that legalizing drugs leads to a decline in violent crime, nor that strict drug laws create violent crime. In fact, I have lived very safely in cities/countries with drug laws even more strict than those in the US.
If you want drugs legalized, argue that, but I don’t think your idea of cause and effect have any real-world evidence to back them up.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 10:42 am #
daleyrocks – I have yet to meet a recreational crack or meth user. I suppose those types of aliens exist, somewhere. I am glad that I got my demon corralled before the final descent, which would inevitably go down that path. Frankly, the idea of a recreational crack user is laughable.
Sobriety checkpoints on the road are an actual violation of our Constitutional rights, but the resident Leftists never whine about them. Odd.
Comment by Sean M. on 4/24 @ 10:43 am #
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Comment by McGehee on 4/24 @ 10:47 am #
It’s because — trolls to the contrary notwithstanding — PW is not a hive mind.
Comment by Jim in KC on 4/24 @ 10:48 am #
That’s an argument for better enforcement of laws against driving drunk, not an argument in favor of police-state methods of catching drunk drivers. A typical “catch rate” for a drunk driving checkpoint is ~1%, and often less.
My point about MADD is that they’ve gone off the rails, moving from awareness efforts to advocating ever-lower BAC levels until, as someone else noted, they’ve become neo-prohibitionists. If half the population are effectively criminals, there’s a good chance the law is stupid.
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 10:48 am #
oh sorry ards, I owe you an ’s’
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 10:51 am #
Challeron – I am not getting the point. If there is a cold blooded killer higher up the line, that person will not be a cold blooded killer if we legalize drugs?
Change the laws. They were enacted via the democratic process, and subject to change. The idea that drug use, and abuse, only affects the user is so utterly without merit, to make it laughable. However, it is a staple in this conversation, every single time.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 10:51 am #
See prohibition. That’s exactly what happened. When the alcohol business became the purview of the mob, violence followed. The drug war is an exponential version of prohibition. We’re spending enormous amounts of money and we’re locking up an unimaginable percentage of our citizenry, all of which could be acceptable except for one inconvenient truth: it doesn’t work.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 10:52 am #
- It just isn’t going to happen, and if it did, and the Commies over at the ACLU weren’t all dead, the case would hit the Supreme within a week.
You’re assuming that the ACLU and the president wouldn’t be on the same side. That’s a really bad assumption. Contemplate what Hillary might try to do to expand presidential powers if she were in office. President Gore?
And I know you don’t think the ACLU is a genuine defender of individual rights.
Comment by Carin TWPBH on 4/24 @ 10:53 am #
But, those limits apply to DRIVING. Not to existing. You can get as drunk as you’d like in your home and no one is going to arrest you. You can hire a driver (or marry someone who doesn’t drink, like I did) and indulge to your heart’s content. You just can’t drink and drive. The list of acceptable “drink and ______” activities is rather long.
Comment by McGehee on 4/24 @ 10:53 am #
Yes.*
Comment by happyfeet on 4/24 @ 10:54 am #
So that’s like a 25% mortality rate. Is that good anyone know?
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 10:55 am #
If you take the motivation away, then no. Was Capone a cold blooded killer? Edgar Bronfman Jr. a cold blooded killer? As Don Henley said, in one of his rare lucid moments, you’ve got to carry weapons ’cause you always carry cash.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 10:56 am #
I personally have not met an addict in recovery who advocates legalizing drugs. To me that is an important argument against it. I’m sure there are such people out there, but I have yet to meet them or read of them.
I agree with Maybee on the violence. It is the same argument those advocating gun control make, even though this argument goes against my position on drugs. There is no evidence to support it.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 10:58 am #
I have a simple solution. Change the laws!
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 11:01 am #
- Jim. I’ve heard some horror stories concerning the latest version of MADD, and you’re absolutely right. ‘Carrie Nation zealots with their axes’ types of idiocy just exacerbates the real problem. A lot of the fixes are political bullshit so the locals can look like they’re doing something.
- I would fight any attempts to strip people of their sensible, constitutional rights, but the Constitution is not a suicide pact, or a license to turn you and your vehicle into an instrument of death.
- If, as has been said, your rights stop at my rights doorstep, then surely the same argument could be made even more forcibly that you have zero rights to act in a way that puts others in danger.
- Answer. don’t know. What I do know is hiding behind “Constitutional rights” when your game involves reckless slaughter….. well there has to be a better way.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 11:04 am #
If drugs are legalized, it will require a small army of security guards at the local Drug Store. The 7/11 overnight cashier will be pushed down the list of jobs that make you more likely to get shot. Legalizing drugs does nothing to change the problems associated with the culture, it just removes institutionalization from the list of unhappy endings. As is, I can stay sober, be jailed, institutionalized, or die. Taking away an option does not sound so good to me.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 11:06 am #
Right. And the moment you do that, you’re liable for prosecution, regardless of anti-drug laws.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 11:09 am #
It takes the cash out of the criminal underworld as well as the violence associated with the trade. It also relieves the burden on our prison system, which would save gobs of money, and it would produce a revenue stream which could be directed toward straigtening out additcs that are willing to straighten out. Those that aren’t are still addicts now and they’ll still be addicts then. Until they’re dead.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 11:12 am #
BBH – nishi/gamera/motha/fuckingbabblingidiot clearly should not be entrusted with a motor vehicle. Should we have random stooopidity checkpoints.
I think I would simply be happy with the checkpoint proponents to admit that the checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment rights of every single sober person that gets caught in one.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 11:15 am #
MADD has the answer, JD. Mandated alcohol sensors in every new car. If you pass the test you can go ahead and drive, right after Two Minutes Hate.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 11:15 am #
Pablo – I am selfish. God forbid I relapse and head down that road again, but I want jail as a potential option. I have heard death sucks. I know detox and rehab sucks, and I know that life as an addict sucks.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 11:16 am #
Dunno how they’re gonna test for crackheads, tho. Or if they should test for folks what be tripping. Those fuckers see everything!
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 11:17 am #
JD, all you’ve got to do is fuck up. Do something stupid, and they’d still lock your ass up.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 11:20 am #
Better than being worm food.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 11:21 am #
Yet some people are destined to be worm food. Actually, we all are, but some are bent on getting there ASAP. Glad you ain’t one of them.
Comment by Education Guy on 4/24 @ 11:27 am #
Holland has legalized drugs. Has drug use gone up since legalization? Has the crime rate gone down? How has the economy of the state been affected.
I disagree with the notion that people use drugs as a form of slow suicide. All animals on the planet have some substance that intoxicates them, and they will all use it when given the chance. Does that mean a nicotine licking hedgehog hates his life?
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 11:37 am #
I am making the argument that whether legal or illegal, the damage done by drugs is not limited to the drug users and those that choose to help him.
You are arguing that there is a potential for a drug user to cause damage through other criminal activity. Okay. I agree. The criminal activity is not caused by the drugs, though, anymore than murders are caused by guns. So using that other criminal activity as argument against legalization amounts to violating the rights of all people because there are some people who might break the law.
And make no mistake, even if you don’t want to do drugs, your rights are being violated by the War on Drugs. You are footing the bill for the extra policing, the court costs, and the incarceration of those arrested on drug charges. You are also paying a social cost in the rampant crime that is associated with the trade. (I think Pablo answered you well on that point.) This is an issue that affects all of us, not just a few stoners, crackheads, and meth fiends.
Comment by alppuccino on 4/24 @ 11:42 am #
This is an issue that affects all of us, not just a few stoners, crackheads, and meth fiends.
Suddenly I don’t feel so lonely.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 11:49 am #
Many here have been vocal in their support for individual liberty and personal responsibility. It is with some bemusement that I note many of those same people do a near complete about-face when the issue in question is the drug war. Frankly, I find horror stories, no matter how personal, rather unconvincing in making the argument that these substances should be illegal. I can generate horror stories about automotive accidents (where no illicit substances are involved), about large (and small) household appliance accidents, about guns, and so on and so on. These same plays to pathos have been part of the propaganda of those opposing the war in Iraq and those who opposed the sanctions regime and those who oppose the sales of SUVs or drilling in ANWR or any number of other groups with agendas.
If you’re gonna convince me that something is so unequivocally wrong that it requires the force of law, you’re gonna have to do more than offer up scare stories. Why is drug use any less an issue of personal responsibility and individual liberty than anything else that falls short of impinging upon other’s well-being? Don’t give me this shit about how the drug user leaves a wake of destruction behind them. So do sluts, but I don’t see any laws against Joan Jett albums. The fact is, most drug users (whether any individual one of them deserves to be called an addict or not) do absolutely nothing that would suggest to anyone that they are a user, let alone go out and wreak havoc on their community. I can say this with great certitude, in part, because alcohol is no less a mind-altering substance than horse and we have mountains of evidence to support that fact that most people can use it (alcohol) responsibly.
Most of the histrionics I see in this thread about the ostensible dangers of drugs suggest that many of those wringing their hands the most frenetically have the least personal experience with these substances.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 11:50 am #
- “The criminal activity is not caused by the drugs”
- You’re kidding, right?
Comment by Education Guy on 4/24 @ 11:53 am #
Why is drug use any less an issue of personal responsibility and individual liberty than anything else that falls short of impinging upon other’s well-being?
I’m speculating here, but I suspect it has something to do with the hit the economy would take as a result of the increase in drug use.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 11:55 am #
What’s more, the word “addiction” has been mutilated very near unto death over the last 30 years. Its current meaning bears little or no resemblance to its meaning 30 years ago. Ironically, its connotation is still roughly the same. Thus, people get all frothed up when they hear the word, even though the specific meaning that gave rise to such a connotation is no longer either specific nor particularly meaningful.
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 11:58 am #
So using that other criminal activity as argument against legalization amounts to violating the rights of all people because there are some people who might break the law.
I am making no such argument. I am disputing an assertion you made.
(I think Pablo answered you well on that point.)
Well, I think I answered you both well by pointing out the current-day success of other countries. Yet we both remain unconvinced by the other.
I think we’re going to argue in circles on this.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 11:59 am #
You are arguing that there is a potential for a drug user to cause damage through other criminal activity.
The damages are in no way limited to criminal activities. Let’s use me as an example. Ask my parents, my brother, my wife, and my children about the damages drugs can cause.
Frankly, there is no need to make an argument against legalization. It is already illegal. The legalization proponents simply must make an argument that is persuasive to the vast majority of the American public.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 12:00 pm #
I personally have not met an addict in recovery who advocates legalizing drugs. To me that is an important argument against it. I’m sure there are such people out there, but I have yet to meet them or read of them.Maybe that’s because the overwhelming majority of drug users (like the overwhelming majority of alcohol users) don’t consider themselves addicts and haven’t been through “recovery.” Maybe it’s also because the prevailing rhetorical position of those that seek to “help addicts” is that those addicts are powerlessly controlled by the “disease” of addiction.
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 12:00 pm #
For me, the proof of Ardgaine’s thesis are all the subjectivist arguments against it.
Sorry, when you create official thugs you create official thugs…which kinda run contrary to prior rights. Love how “conservatives” trump the Bill of Rights with any little moral statute their special interests can conjure up.
Not unlike liberals, they.
Your “right” to “prevent” crime ends when it intrudes on my personal rights, with me in that equation being a presumed innocent and literally innocent constitutionalist. Which it invariably does. Suggest you reverse that cart and horse until it makes sense.
Ditto the Texas CPS rubbish: Spare me the moralizing, which is only as useful and rightful as any other well-there-oughts-be-a-law protectionist subjectivity on our road to mob morality, which is to say, not at all.
Bonus point of discussion: Is law enforcement constitutionally intended to prosecute criminals or prevent crime? Yep, personal security is a bitch, isn’t it? Give away your right to protect yourself and suddenly somebody else comes along, intractably, and does a shitty job doing it for you.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 12:02 pm #
Well, I think I answered you both well by pointing out the current-day success of other countries.
I don’t think you provided any specifics, but I could have missed it. Any what counts as success? Are you saying that other countries have had a significant effect on drug use through the application of prohibition? Are you able to demonstrate that the numbers any government might wish to put up to justify such a claim are accurate?
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 12:05 pm #
Pablo – I am selfish. God forbid I relapse and head down that road again, but I want jail as a potential option.
The selfish desire to live should be enough. Fear of prison obviously isn’t, or no one would be doing them now. In order for the desire to live to prevail, though, one has to first see early death as the end game, and second, care.
Enough is known about the addictiveness of drugs that people don’t have an excuse for thinking that they are going to be the exception, especially in the case of the highly addictive and highly poisonous drugs like crack, meth, and heroin. Anyone who does one of those drugs is, at the least, ambivalent about life.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 12:08 pm #
The damages are in no way limited to criminal activities. Let’s use me as an example. Ask my parents, my brother, my wife, and my children about the damages drugs can cause.
No offense, JD, but the drugs didn’t hurt those people, you did. That you would then (and now) try to defer blame to the drugs doesn’t recommend your opinion on this subject. As I said, I don’t wish to offend you. I’m sure you deserve considerable respect for having shuffed off the monkey as it were. But that you need to convince yourself that it was the drugs and not you that is responsible for the poor decisions speaks to precisely the kind of social result that can be derived from an atmosphere wherein law sees itself as the remedy to a lack of personal responsibility.
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 12:09 pm #
Read: Right by status quo trumps reason.
Read: Right by status quo.
Read: This already is a moral majority form of government, isn’t it?
All of which is obvious. What’s interesting is that this somehow constitutes its own legitimate argument.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 12:14 pm #
Mac the Ter
If you’re gonna convince me that something is so unequivocally wrong that it requires the force of law, you’re gonna have to do more than offer up scare stories.
That debate has already been conducted. Drugs are illegal. Persuade the majority that your policy positions are more correct.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 12:18 pm #
That debate has already been conducted. Drugs are illegal. Persuade the majority that your policy positions are more correct.
As was the case with Jim Crow laws.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 12:20 pm #
I happen to have read a lot about the passage of the Controlled Substances Act which leads me to believe that the notion that anything like a real debate has already been conducted is laughable.
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 12:21 pm #
I don’t think you provided any specifics, but I could have missed it. Any what counts as success? Are you saying that other countries have had a significant effect on drug use through the application of prohibition? Are you able to demonstrate that the numbers any government might wish to put up to justify such a claim are accurate?
Did anyone offer any specifics on this thread? Is asserting that gang violence is caused by the war on drugs and legalizing drugs will eliminate gang violence offering a specific?
Gah. As I said, we’re just going to argue in circles here.
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 12:21 pm #
Which immediately questions how and to what degree society shall fuck anything, no? Including those who do not drink and then drive, and yet to lethal effect.
I know, brainwaves. Mothers Against Dangerous Drivers.
Which although being the most obvious problem with this little slippery slope we’re on, is the obvious problem getting hardly any airtime.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 12:26 pm #
Mac – No need to say “no offense”, none taken. You are partially correct in that. I am not shuffling off anything, or deferring blame. I am I alone am to blame. Period. End of story. That does not mean I must think that drugs should be legal.
Anyone who does one of those drugs is, at the least, ambivalent about life.
Yet we should legalize them? Or let a 22 year old make that decision?
But that you need to convince yourself that it was the drugs and not you
Mac – This one steams me, so I will let it go, without commenting beyond this. You could not be more wrong about me and my view on this if you tried.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 12:27 pm #
Yup. See medical marijuana. In order to have the debate, first you have to accept the boogeyman premise. Otherwise, no one’s talking to you.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 12:30 pm #
A 22 year old can make any decision he/she wants, including to break the law or to put their life on the life for their country. Are we to nanny the entire citizenry to keep adults from making decisions we might frown upon? Should we stop them from being coal miners or ironworkers because it’s dangerous? Should we stop them from being Marines?
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 12:31 pm #
Or, does it take a village to raise a 22 year old?
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 12:37 pm #
Come on, Pablo. There is a utility to driving a car. There is a utility to being a coal miner, or ironworker, and Marines. Other than to get fucked up, and alter one’s perception of reality, there is no utility for illegal drugs.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 12:45 pm #
But that you need to convince yourself that it was the drugs and not you
Mac – This one steams me, so I will let it go, without commenting beyond this. You could not be more wrong about me and my view on this if you tried.
JD, sorry you’re steamed. I tried not to make any assumptions about you beyond what you stated overtly. You’ve said, quite clearly, that you believe drugs should be illegal because of your experience with them and because drug users harm others, “Ask my parents, my brother, my wife, and my children about the damages drugs can cause.” You even went so far as to say that you’re glad the threat of prison is there because it keeps you honest.
The comment that you say steamed you was the assertion that in an environment in which “the authorities” have declared that those over whom they exercise their authority are incapable of making good decisions provides rhetorical and philosophical cover for those who wish to promulgate positions that undermine personal responsibility. In other words, those in the medical establishment who wish to convince people that addiction is a disease over which the addict has no control are aided and abetted by a legislative climate that presupposes the intellectual impotence of the citizenry.
My point was intended as an abstraction about the culture within which our conversation is taking place much more so than a comment on you as a person. Shit, I don’t know the first thing about you, other than that you’re in possession of considerable genius simply for being a reader of PW.
Mea Culpa Sir.
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 12:47 pm #
Any what counts as success? Are you saying that other countries have had a significant effect on drug use through the application of prohibition?
Oh but Mal, I do want to clear something up.
Ards is saying that violence such as these shootings are caused by strict drugs laws.
I’m not saying that the places I’ve lived had success in keeping people off drugs. I’m arguing that the places I’ve lived- like Tokyo and Hong Kong- have very strict drug laws and very little violent crime. I’m arguing that it isn’t the drug laws that cause the violence.
Comment by Matt, Esq. on 4/24 @ 12:49 pm #
AS an aside, I used to do drug cases and I think marijuana should be legalized, for no other reason than the insane strain prosecuting those cases put on the system. For every 1 meth cases, there’s 20 weed cases and when it comes to drugs, there should be a much higher priority in getting the hard nasty stuff off the street. Also, friends of mine in law enforcement have candidly admitted the drug divisions of LE are much more inclined to go after marijuana dealers/growers/trafficers because typically, the people running the marijuana are less violent and many times illegal immigrants, making the busts much safer than say, going after a coke dealer or breaking up a meth lab. The other factor for marijuana busts (vs. say meth or heroin) is the CO’s know they’ll get themselves in the local paper, standing around looking tough next to a gigantic pile of the confiscated weed.
I would not support legalizing any other drug but pot. Its probably the only thing Barrak Obama and I will ever agree on.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 12:54 pm #
- But JD, don’t you see the blaze’ reasoning of the powerful intellects in residence today, offering up their cool headed off handed opinions of the foolishness of it all.
- Apparently some people just cannot get their arms around the concept of community. Its an “hey, fuck you. I have a right to do what I want to.” world for some.
- I particularly love the way they jump on the “don’t blow off personal responsibility” screed of the modernists…..”Its not the drugs/booze….its you” crap…. A totally specious argument that has nothing to do with anything, but its useful to put your opponent in any discussion on the defensive.
- As a 12 year experienced Alanon consoler I will just say in your behalf they’re full of shit.
- Oh damn. Someone with some real life experience in the field. There goes the neighborhood.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 12:58 pm #
Come on, Pablo. There is a utility to driving a car. There is a utility to being a coal miner, or ironworker, and Marines. Other than to get fucked up, and alter one’s perception of reality, there is no utility for illegal drugs.
There is this fundamental libertarian economic notion about “what is seen and what is not seen.” I don’t remember the actual name – something like what I suggested anyway. It’s the idea that just because some particular activity generates what might be considered a “good” outcome doesn’t mean that a better outcome might not have been generated through a different activity. Butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil and all that.
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 1:06 pm #
I have waged a war on grammar in this thread.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 1:13 pm #
The damages are in no way limited to criminal activities. Let’s use me as an example. Ask my parents, my brother, my wife, and my children about the damages drugs can cause.
I already answered the point about non-criminal damages above. It’s a personal decision whether to remain engaged with a drug addict or not. I don’t know what sort of scare stories you have, but I grew up with an alcoholic, so I already know what damage can be done on a personal level by an addict. Throwing him in jail would not have improved my life, and outlawing alcohol would not have stopped his addiction.
Frankly, there is no need to make an argument against legalization. It is already illegal. The legalization proponents simply must make an argument that is persuasive to the vast majority of the American public.
Vox populi, vox dei. Or is it the other way around?
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 1:13 pm #
So? Codifying such subjectivities into statute is precisely where feelings trump rights, which is the problem, even at this late stage of the USA’s slide into what certainly resembles nannyism.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 1:17 pm #
BBH – When they say “Its not the drugs/booze….its you crap”, they speak the truth. That does not mean that drugs should be legal though.
Mac – It sounds like opportunity costs that you are referencing, though I am in no way familiar with the Libertarian or libertarian lexicon.
You even went so far as to say that you’re glad the threat of prison is there because it keeps you honest.
I did not say it keeps me honest. I do that all on my own. It does give me another option should I relapse, as opposed to the gutter, an institution, or death.
But that you need to convince yourself that it was the drugs and not you
It steamed me because I do not need to convince myself of anything. I know that I cannot use or drink today. I know that it is my choice to do so, and your phrasing implied otherwise. I know you meant nothing personal, and these are harder since we do not know each other, especially since I threw this out there for public consumption.
Pet peeve of mine : Why is it that when you hear “no offense”, you just know you are about to be offended? lol
That is why I want to have a big get-together for everyone. Let’s shake hands, tell stories, and I will watch the rest of you bark at the moon after eating tequila worms, and draw little Pepe Le’Pue frenchie moustaches on everyone when they pass out.
Comment by Ric Locke on 4/24 @ 1:20 pm #
No, no debate has ever occurred. Any time one starts, the sequence here is followed — it gets derailed into vicious argument over how many crackheads can dance on a sewer manhole, and nothing gets resolved.
This is because most everybody talks about unintended consequences, commutativity, and symmetry, nobody really believes it. Everybody is absolutely sure that their own particular form of righteousness is in fact Righteous and recognizable by everybody else as such, and therefore that their Righteous Measures are the minimum necessary to validate it. Anyone who disagrees is by definition Unrighteous and therefore to be dismissed or ignored.
Every. Single. One. of the drug laws in this country originated as either racist measures or bureaucratic power-grabs, without a single exception. The fact that the proponents talk endlessly about public health and public benefit means nothing; that’s how they were camouflaged in the beginning. “Hard” drugs were originally regulated specifically as an attack on the Chinese. The squeamish were encouraged to talk about health hazards and the like, but the main thrust was to give the cops a handle on public order by giving them an excuse to roust the damned Chinks. The marijuana laws were aimed directly at black “juke joints”, whose patrons couldn’t afford alcohol — at first because it was illegal, and therefore expensive; later because it was too highly taxed — so used cannabis, which grows freely throughout North America, as the mind-altering substance. I’m only sixty, and I’m old enough to have heard it being discussed in precisely those terms. The laws’ effect is still overwhelmingly racist and… hmm, we really don’t have a word; ethnicist (hard “c”) is clumsy but it might do. We have a “pre-release” facility here in town, where inmates come to spend their last year or so with the intent of preparing them to function in society. Most of them are either black or low-class Hispanic, and practically all of them are “in” for drug offenses. One of the byproducts of the drug laws is to validate Jeremiah Wright, and he’s absolutely right about it. Black males and poor Hispanics get graunched. The fatcats live in mansions, with servants, and contribute heavily to the politicians who keep their gravy train firmly on the rails.
And if you’re one of the ones bewailing the Ominous Impact On Society of Drug Use, and consequent absolute necessity to forbid it and enforce that prohibition as strongly as possible, you have absolutely no, zero, zip basis for criticizing, e.g., Hillary!’s assertion that it’s necessary to “…take more from you for your own good.” You are making exactly the same argument on exactly the same basis, with only the specific subject of Righteousness being changed.
Regards,
Ric
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 1:27 pm #
We all think alike. A chorus of unity. Mindlessly following the dicta of Rush. ;-)
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 1:29 pm #
BBH, I respectfully disagree with some of the kernel assumptions of AA. That said, I offer my sincere and respectful appreciation for your time and efforts. I wouldn’t doubt for a minute that you are sincere and doing what you do because you believe it is making a difference. I’m sure it does make a big difference.
I have lots of personal experience with drug use and culture. I can say, from experience, that there are cultures in the world that would consider a member’s rejection of the insights offered through the ritual intercession of a psychoactive agent to be insanity. The evolution of human society owes a significant tribute to its relationship with psychoactive plants. I can also say, with little compunction that for every strung-out junkie you encounter in meeting halls and emergency rooms and so on, there are hundreds of casual users who are in no need of rehabilitation.
It is possible, as Huxley suggested that despite his personal experiences, these chemicals have no place in modern civilization. I have proscribed all but sake (whenever I can actually find the good stuff) and the occasional glass of wine for myself since having children seeing as how I don’t want them potentially exposed to having their house seized from under them. And yet, somehow, I was able to do it. My experience was not uncommon in my peer group either. Many who had experimented with pot or psilocybin or mescaline or LSD in college got jobs, got married and either stopped using altogether or moderated their use to a point where others weren’t aware. This doesn’t fit the narrative that it is a disease from which you are powerless to escape.
So no, I don’t agree with the “addiction as disease†model. But I prefer a world with as little violence. I prefer a world with as much compassion as possible. I don’t see how I can want those things and not have respect for what you do despite my differences with the philosophy.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 1:32 pm #
- “BBH – When they say “Its not the drugs/booze….its you crapâ€Â, they speak the truth. That does not mean that drugs should be legal though.”
- If they were addressing that aspect of substance abuse in the correct way AND if they had the foggiest notion of how complex the whole subject really is, then yes.
- As things stand, just reading some of the smug, one dimensional, inexperienced comments, not so much.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 1:34 pm #
Most of the histrionics I see in this thread about the ostensible dangers of drugs suggest that many of those wringing their hands the most frenetically have the least personal experience with these substances.
Malaclypse – By your comments here I assume you include yourself. The personal responsibility angle you present being the most laughable, as accepting responsibility is centerpiece of most recovery programs of which I am familiar.
Perhaps the proponents of legalization should move to Paultown or whatever they are calling that retardville of Ron Paul supporters so they can ignore the views of their fellow citizens as reflected in validly passed laws. Isn’t this called raging against the machine or something?
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 1:34 pm #
This doesn’t fit the narrative that it is a disease from which you are powerless to escape.
You are one of those aliens ;-)
The disease model does not suggest that everyone that uses has the disease.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 1:40 pm #
Mac, BBH, etal …
Maybe I should not have brought my individual experience into this. I, in no way, intended to have that come across as an apeal to authority, or that it gives my opinions (and that is all we have) on this topic any more validity than the next. I just thought that a little first hand experience could help people understand, even just a little.
I am proud of my experience, not the least bit ashamed. I have grown from it, and am a better person for having done so.
But, after reading this, I see how difficult it makes conversation when people are attempting to avoid stepping on toes, etc … except for Jhoward ;-)
In conclusion, as a society, we draw all sorts of lines as far as what is acceptable to the greater society, and what is not. This is a line I do not mind. Others believe differently. That makes neither party bad, evil, or even wrong. We just have differing views
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 1:47 pm #
Nice post, Ric. Kindly expect none of it to dissuade daleyrocks from inadvertently proving it right, fourteen minutes later.
See what I mean? “Validly”. Raw democracy asserted by qualified users wins, you Paulians, especially when it’s motivated by special-interest, kinda like Texas passing age of consent laws just to thwart religious sects. Whoa! They hauled off the entire community?
I believe I’d questioned the notion of contemporary laws on behavior trumping original constitutional rights awhile back but apparently that too phased our resident moralists not at all.
Comment by malaclypse the tertiary on 4/24 @ 1:48 pm #
daleyrocks,
AA persists in asserting the addict’s fundamental helplessness due to the disease theory. This is not uncommon knowledge. Nowhere was I speaking of all rehabilitation models. I was simply characterizing the motivations I was discerning from the thread. I said them “out loud” as it were, to invite discussion, including criticism. So, nothing flip or blithe about it.
On that topic, I think one of the most pernicious acts done by the drug war is in reducing the integrity of government. When the highest medical office in the land must be a mouthpiece for the suggestion that, say, marijuana is this unspeakable horror and then almost every single college freshman that tries it realizes it is this incredibly innocuous thing that at its worst will make you fall asleep, it goes to the veracity of anything the government has to say.
I’ll just point out respectfully that I find the handwringing about drugs rather disengenuous; I was hardly ‘raging.’ I’ll also just go ahead give you credit for knowing that all law is not necessarily good law. You know this. This isn’t revolutionary rhetoric. Drug law is bad law, just like Jim Crow.
/not a ron paul supporter
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 1:54 pm #
JHoward – You’re still just smarting over that stupid video over evil money supply growth that was based on completely false assumptions that you were touting here. I can’t help it if you’re a fool and rude to women.
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 1:55 pm #
With all due respect, BBH, but the latter here kinda puts the former into a different light. Just saying.
Er, it has everything to do with everything, BBH, thank you very much for noticing.
Because, as far as I know, there is no constitutional provision for conditional rights based on either specific demographic or State whim, nor is there a clause making addiction conditional within those rights. Sadly, the whole bloody thing assumes very specific personal privileges and a very specific State responsibility to them.
Which is a state of affairs distinctly different from the way, say, you or I live (or attempt to) as lawabiders within a nation of door-bashing SWAT teams and guilt-presuming officials.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 1:56 pm #
Ards is saying that violence such as these shootings are caused by strict drugs laws.
What I’m saying is that when the protection of the law is removed from trading in a popular commodity, that trade will become dominated by ruthless men. The trade is too popular to simply disappear because it has been outlawed. The meek are driven out of the trade. You cannot sue someone for breech of contract in the drug trade. If you front the guy and he holds out on you, you have to deal with it yourself. With a gun. If you show up for a drug deal carrying $100k and no gun, you are not going to survive. If you show up carrying a gun, but you don’t have the willingness to use it, you won’t survive. If you show up carrying a gun, and you are both willing and able to use it, you can walk away with the coke and the money. What the hell, you’re already breaking the law. Win goes to you. Those are the kind of men who succeed in the business. That is why it is so violent.
People made fun of the guy in the article who blamed the recent shootings on the fact that some of the top guys in the business were locked up, but it makes perfect sense. Aggressive enforcement opens up new positions in distribution, and the competition for those positions isn’t carried out with fancy ad campaigns. It’s carried out with guns.
I’m not arguing against aggressive enforcement, though, because as I said, the top guys are killers. I’m arguing against taking the business out of their hands. Make it legit, and the killers won’t be able to compete. Their one advantage will be taken away. We’re never going to eliminate all crime, I know, but we could make a drastic reduction by placing the drug trade under the rule of law.
As for successes in other countries, I haven’t studied other countries. All I know is that Americans have a will to resist government edicts with which they disagree. If you could teach them the habit of obedience, you could rule them more completely. They wouldn’t be Americans anymore though. Drugs are a very poor icon for that spirit, but there’s no question that drug users in the US romanticize their activity as a rebellion against arbitrary authority.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 1:56 pm #
- JD. I’m not intending to go into the nuts and bolts of substance abuse on this type of forum, and I can read much into your words having shared some of your experiences that I’m sure you’ve had.
- I’m also not “down” on Libertarian, iconoclastic attitudes. They have their place. But I happen to believe we all have an additional responsibility to community, and to deny that is a selfish, and mentally lazy way of thinking. (…mumbles something about “balance” in life, and lets it go…..)
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 2:03 pm #
Heh. Rise to that bait I will. What I am is a rude fool who clearly identifies such indefensibly subjective arguments based on asserted whim as your own.
To stand convicted by your standards, daleyrocks, such as they may be on any particular Thursday, is indeed a vindication of reason.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 2:03 pm #
And if you’re one of the ones bewailing the Ominous Impact On Society of Drug Use, and consequent absolute necessity to forbid it and enforce that prohibition as strongly as possible, you have absolutely no, zero, zip basis for criticizing, e.g., Hillary!’s assertion that it’s necessary to “…take more from you for your own good.†You are making exactly the same argument on exactly the same basis, with only the specific subject of Righteousness being changed.
:stands up and applauds::
Ric, can you suggest reading for your info on the origins of the drug laws, or is that from your personal recollection of the times? I certainly agree with you about its effect today.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 2:08 pm #
Malaclypse – AA does not require you to think of alcoholism as a disease, although alcohol is in the DSM, I wonder why? AA’s first step suggests you recognize your powerlessness over alcohol. The alcoholics I know who relapse after periods of sobriety, even very considerable periods of sobriety, seem to pick up their consumptions patterns where they left off or worse very quickly, suggesting the disease model does have credence. I presume, now since you have claimed more familiarity with the subject, some knowledge of the Jellinek Curve. Do you dispute things like that? Addicts I talk to after periods of clean time share similar experiences to alcoholics.
The focus by the libertarians on individual rights is interesting but meaningless given the society we live in. The focus on costs to society of illegal drugs as just crime, policing and law enforcement costs, again misses the ball. I’m not sure the lost productivity due to illegal drug use or other tertiary effects can be measured.
It also sounds like many of those on this thread have not met any 30 year daily bong monkeys to see the impact of that type of marijuana use on individuals. With legalization, I’m sure we’d have a lot more like those I know.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 2:09 pm #
I believe I’d questioned the notion of contemporary laws on behavior trumping original constitutional rights awhile back but apparently that too phased our resident moralists not at all.
I think the Right to snort lines off of a stripper’s ass comes right after the Right to an abortion.
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 2:15 pm #
BBH, the problem is not with failing to comprehend community. In fact, the problem is constraining community as it invariably comes to exert itself upon the individual. There are private communities and there is the public community waging the holy war on drugs (and by the same token, any other behavioral concern the State deems itself in power to treat by force, especially if it involves special interest, gender, politics, speech, current PC whim, et al.)
JD, no offense intended — your personal accounts make one wince in their sincerity and weight. Which makes a solution all the more difficult. But like BBH, that personal need cannot trump other rights, no?
I admit reacting to a lot of State overreach these days…as well as a decided lack of outcry from the ostensible right. I’d hoped to assume that conservatives would be the first to see through the great excesses of social American government. In fact, they as often as not become socialcons, actually competing with the left in the tax race to see who controls the emerging juggernaut of nanny power.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 2:18 pm #
You are making exactly the same argument on exactly the same basis, with only the specific subject of Righteousness being changed.
Ric – You mean income redistribution over fairness? Only if you by her argument and you buy your argument, neither of which I am convinced of today. You provided an interesting historical discussion, but how much is still true today?
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 2:21 pm #
I happen to believe we all have an additional responsibility to community, and to deny that is a selfish [...] way of thinking
I agree with the part in bold. Of course, the claim that individuals have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness is also selfish. It’s the foundation of our government, though, and after 100+ years of trying it still has not yet been overturned. I wish you every bit of bad luck in the attempt.
As an aside, has anyone here read Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism? It’s a goldmine of information on that 100 year attempt. It’s all from the conservative angle, and there’s a bit of a blind spot, but it’s very informative. The parallels between “smiley-face fascism” and what some conservatives advocate should make them more than a little uncomfortable.
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 2:23 pm #
Rights are enumerated primarily by way of the State’s specified limits of infringement upon them — they exist where not prohibited otherwise. You have the right to drive, the right to piss in your backyard, the right to write stuff on blogs, and yet not a one of them is specified.
Therefore they are, as a list of what you can and cannot do, obviously not enumerated as you just have.
The argument that if it ain’t enumerated it’s free from constitutional inspection is also exactly backwards, yet this fallacy makes for all kinds of harebrained notions of what constitutes “valid” law. “The constitution doesn’t prohibit us bulldozing Waco. So let’s bulldoze Waco!”
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 2:23 pm #
People made fun of the guy in the article who blamed the recent shootings on the fact that some of the top guys in the business were locked up, but it makes perfect sense.
Who did?
The gang leaders aren’t just, as you depict, the “top guys in the business”, and young men join gangs for reasons other than to enter the drug selling business.
That aside, Carin pointed out the fact that it is a problem the older guys are in prison because the kids have joined gangs to get a sense of belonging. They don’t have fathers, they have older gang members. They don’t have mothers that care about them, or that are too busy to supervise them. They aren’t interested in school. They want quick respect. They have a desire to hurt people.
The root of problem isn’t that the older gang members are in prison because of the drug war, however. The root of the problem is that these guys are turning to older gang members as father figures in the first place.
Drugs are a very poor icon for that spirit, but there’s no question that drug users in the US romanticize their activity as a rebellion against arbitrary authority.
Gang members and drug users are not synonymous. I will agree that gang members romanticize their activity, but they aren’t rebelling against arbitrary authority. We’re not talking about James Dean, here.
We’re talking about the guy that drives up in car, asks non-gang member Jamiel Shaw what gang he’s in, then shoots him for the fun of it.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 2:24 pm #
“I believe I’d questioned the notion of contemporary laws on behavior trumping original constitutional rights awhile back but apparently that too phased our resident moralists not at all.”
I keep forgetting which constitutional rights are being trampled by the war on drugs. It must have been all those drugs I consumed in my misspent youth.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 2:24 pm #
JHoward – I know you mean no ill. I apologize for the wincing. Not my intention.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 2:24 pm #
I think the Right to snort lines off of a stripper’s ass comes right after the Right to an abortion.
ROFL! Did I mention that I believe in the right to an abortion also? :-P
Comment by happyfeet on 4/24 @ 2:29 pm #
Oh. I think drugs are not worth legalizing. If ephedra was forced off the market just through the usual tort lawyer scam bullshit I really don’t see how this is practical for anything what’s an illegal narcotic now.
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 2:31 pm #
Oh, I don’t know, daleyrocks, maybe the notion that the State cannot justly, constitutionally do what Ric so kindly pointed out for you it has for all these decades. And you ignored, it not fitting your own brand of subjectivity.
And that’s just for starters. Then there’s all the stuff implied in #169, posted not ten minutes before you. Or, just perhaps, the previous mention of the use of SWAT to act more or less outside the law against innocent citizens.
Wow; I’d have to conclude you’re quite insincere about any of this.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 2:34 pm #
I’m not sure the lost productivity due to illegal drug use
This is precisely what JHoward is talking about. You are talking about the lost productivity like it belongs to the state. It belongs to the one doing the drugs. If he pisses it away, that’s his right. It doesn’t cost you a dime. Collectivizing costs is one of the primary methods by which socialism advances. The socialists assert that X is going to cost everybody, and that gives them an excuse to control X.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 2:36 pm #
- JH I will do you the courteousy of responding.
- We are, in some ways at least, talking past each other. The old saw “When you’re mind is on hammers, everything in life looks like a nail.”
- The “community” ,to witch I refer, is that of the interpersonal experience of people as a community. Has only the most peripheral connection with government.
- Try it again from that stanpoint, and things might firm up a bit.
- Beyond that, I will share one aspect of substance abuse thinking that informs most modern programs. One of the most common questions of the neophyte; “Is he/she an alcoholic”, also happens to be considered totally illrelevant by most practitioners in the profession. I’ll leave it to your own devices to deduce just why that might be the case. Food for thought.
Comment by Ric Locke on 4/24 @ 2:37 pm #
Ards, it is my specific and intentional practice not to be too specific about my sources. In part that’s because they’re personal and sometimes scurrilous — there were a number of people who wanted my father to get into politics when I were a tad, and I overheard a lot of stuff as a result of visits from paunchy, slack-lipped men in expensive but badly-tailored suits who smelled of attar of Four Roses. It is even more because I urge you and everyone else to do your own basic research. Everybody (including me) who offers a summary or precÃÂs has a political axe to grind, and you should always assume that there is something a little off in any such presentation.
That being said, contemporary newspapers and official records of the deliberations of Legislatures are the place to start. I warn you, it’s a lot of work which I no longer do.
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Jim in KC on 4/24 @ 2:38 pm #
When was the last time someone at Anheuser Busch shot someone at Miller over market share? Corporations might indulge in all types of sleazy behavior, conduct corporate espionage, etc, but drive-by shootings? Not so much. More likely they’ll just come up with more cute “Clydesdales playing football” commercials…
Comment by Jim in KC on 4/24 @ 2:44 pm #
Right before, actually. Although I’ve never indulged in that little ritual. Now, if you were to ask about, say, the console of a Ferrari, I would be forced to be somewhat non-committal in my answer.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 2:46 pm #
JHoward – Tick tock. Sorry I’m not fast enough on your watch. I read Ric’s comment and asked a question. You didn’t notice.
You have not been able to point to a single place where the war on drugs violates the constitution, in 169 or 172. You have implications and penumbras based on your lazy libertarian thinking. I thank you for playing and rising to the bait.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 2:48 pm #
Ards – I’m with BBH on defining the community. I was not talking about the state.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 2:51 pm #
Jim in KC – One of life’s simple pleasures ;-)
I enjoy it when we do not all agree. It should make everyone step back and question some of their basic assumptions.
Comment by Jim in KC on 4/24 @ 2:54 pm #
daleyrocks–10th amendment, as far as the right to do lines off a stripper’s ass. Various other amendments are violated in the process of enforcement.
At least the paleo-prohibitionists understood the need for an amendment to make the demon rum illegal.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 2:55 pm #
On a tangentially related topic, PacMan Jones is going to the Dallas Cowboys, but has to stay out of strip clubs? Cruel, I tell you, cruel.
Comment by Jim in KC on 4/24 @ 2:57 pm #
I agree, JD. It is possible for grown-ups to disagree and discuss that disagreement without falling back on ad hominems. Now if only the trolls would figure that out…
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 3:00 pm #
Jim in KC – When was the last time someone died injecting a Bud Light in their arm?
I remember the alcoholic in Texas who died four years ago after his wife gave him a sherry enema. He wasn’t allowed to drink, so he got the alcohol into his bloodstream via that method. I think she was eventually charged with something related to his death.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 3:03 pm #
Feets – In the 1970s I was able to buy ephedra sulfate, for my asthma (ahem), over the counter as a speed substitute. Can’t do that anymore I guess.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 3:05 pm #
So, where does this put me on the spectrum? I do not agree with legalization, but think that many of the enforcement measures fly in the face of the Constitution?
Peruvian Gold off of a stripper’s Brazilian wax landing strip? To die for ;-)
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 3:08 pm #
Gang members and drug users are not synonymous.
I was speaking of drug users because they drive the trade. So long as there is a high demand, there will be a supply.
I will agree that gang members romanticize their activity, but they aren’t rebelling against arbitrary authority.
They are subject to arrest and lengthy prison sentence for dealing drugs, while the guy selling alcohol is protected by the cops. I think that qualifies as arbitrary.
We’re not talking about James Dean, here.
No, it’s gone much further than that.
We’re talking about the guy that drives up in car, asks non-gang member Jamiel Shaw what gang he’s in, then shoots him for the fun of it.
You are looking at the situation as it is now after years of the drug trade infesting the inner city. There are a lot of things that would need to be done to address that situation, but drying up the flow of drug money into the pockets of the gang leaders is a really good way to start.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 3:13 pm #
- Ah. The IX an X. My two favs. To paraphrase:
- One states your position as “a citizen first of your State, then of the Union (country)” in that order. The Fed has no sovereignty, other than what we assign to it by agreement of the States. A bit different than most people think of things as a rule, and most assuredly different that what Washington likes to pretend.
- The other, that only powers we the people codify in this document are available to the Fed, and only as long as we wish it so. Anything not expressly stated herein is off limits.
- The Fed doesn’t like to talk about these articles a lot.
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 3:14 pm #
You are looking at the situation as it is now after years of the drug trade infesting the inner city.
And after years of gang activity and the glorification thereof, lack of parenting, and disinterest in education infesting the inner city. But yes, I’m looking at the situation we have now because that is the situation we have….now.
There are a lot of things that would need to be done to address that situation, but drying up the flow of drug money into the pockets of the gang leaders is a really good way to start.
I disagree that legalizing drugs is a good way to start. I don’t think you have much to back you up on that, but I appreciate that you are committed to that belief. We are going to continue to disagree.
Comment by Pablo on 4/24 @ 3:17 pm #
When was the last time someone died of alcohol poisoning, or wrapped themselves around a tree? When was the last time someone died of lung cancer or emphaseyma? When did it become the purview of the government to protect us from all manner of self abuse? Why don’t we just get it over with and ban everything but soy milk and green vegetables?
SAVE ME FROM MYSELF, MAYOR BLOOMBERG!!
Comment by happyfeet on 4/24 @ 3:18 pm #
Drugs can be very time-consuming. Worse than video games even.
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 3:18 pm #
Feets – In the 1970s I was able to buy ephedra sulfate, for my asthma (ahem), over the counter as a speed substitute. Can’t do that anymore I guess.
Well, now in California you can have glaucoma (ahem) and get medical marijuana from a dispensary with a big neon pot leaf in the window. Very professional.
Comment by happyfeet on 4/24 @ 3:30 pm #
daley – you can still get it for asthma cause some court or whatever knocked the ban down but the Diet Fuel people etc. went ahead and got out cause of litigation fears. It’s just weird cause now it’s more expensive and there’s no consistency in the milligrams and I have no idea how much I used to take so I never know how much to take of the new stuff and it’s just a hassle. Orin Hatch fought the good fight though. Good on him. I’m glad he’s not riddled with cancer like Arlen.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 3:34 pm #
- The “community†,to witch I refer, is that of the interpersonal experience of people as a community. Has only the most peripheral connection with government.
You’re in danger of losing me here. We were talking about the state’s power of coercion, and now you’re talking about non-governmental communities. Maybe I missed one of your posts. I’ve been trying to clean house in between following the discussion. Can you connect these up for me?
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 3:44 pm #
I disagree that legalizing drugs is a good way to start.
So how would you start?
Comment by alppuccino on 4/24 @ 3:45 pm #
I don’t want my kids to even start drinking or using drugs. I won 6 world drinking championships and then retired on top of my game. I wasn’t going to go out like Cecil Fielder or Joe Namath (just to balance the race score). And I’m not coming back to the drinking game like Michael Jordan or Johnny Miller (more racial balance, but Johnny Miller really embarrassed himself of the Senior Tour).
Back to the kids – Every chance I get, I give a negative connotation to drugs and booze. And I get a lot of chances, seeing as their mother’s mother is a nasty mean boozer. So for their own good, I have to sacrifice my own classiness and call their Grandma a lush, or a sloshey juicer, or a mean drunk, or a martini with legs, or “The lady who gets a weekly thank you card from Stoli” etc. I don’t want to have to always come up with new names for her. I feel I owe it to the kids.
Oh and I call the FedEx guy a pothead. He’s black.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 3:47 pm #
Where’s BJ, dammit??? I can’t believe he missed this.
Comment by Jim in KC on 4/24 @ 3:50 pm #
Heck, Pablo, we’ll just pass a law making it illegal to die. Problem solved. Immortality is ours! by legislative fiat.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 3:52 pm #
- Sure Ard. Some see the entire bulkwork of societal issues, such as drug abuse, as a government driven discussion, and then howl that theres too much government meddling OR theres not enough effective governmental involvement.
- People in the profession see the government as a necessary source of funding for various societal needs and thats it. Nothing else. If you think about the whole picture from a “families”, “community”, “individual” responsibilities standpoint, the gov. aspects become more or less moot. Government tends to insert itself simply because it things since it writes the checks it should have the control.
- This is a stupid self serving idea that in any other setting you would scoff at. First off, the people, not the gov. writes the checks. Secondly the government knows nothing about anything.
- In fact, having watched the less than useful “help” from our beloved gov. all these years, its no wonder very few people with such experience are in a hurry to EVER turn over the health care system to the gov.
- If Hillery or Obama really knew anything about reality they’d run horrified by such a proposal. That they do not do so, just amplifies the “why” we should not consider such a thing.
- The reason this distinction between “community” as gov/laws, and “community” as the people and their interactions, is that without extensive and consistent civic involvement, nothing will ever change. In fact its key, much more so than any legislation.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 4:03 pm #
I enjoy it when we do not all agree. It should make everyone step back and question some of their basic assumptions.
I’m glad you had fun. When I read your first post I thought, “Oh, that’s not a good sign.” :)
Comment by MayBee on 4/24 @ 4:04 pm #
So how would you start?
I’ll save my long list of brilliant ideas for another day.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 4:34 pm #
Just so y’all know, a line of golden flake off MayBee’s flat hard stomach is a slice of heaven. ;-)
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 4:49 pm #
Government tends to insert itself simply because it things since it writes the checks it should have the control.
Isn’t that largely because the government has to know how the money is spent and make sure that the taxpayer’s interests are being served? It seems like a catch-22 inherent in dispensing government funds: The money has to have strings attached to prevent abuse, yet the attaching of strings forces a one-size-fits-none solution. It’s one of the best arguments against government funding of anything.
First off, the people, not the gov. writes the checks.
Ultimately, but the people getting the money are not the only ones that contributed the money, so I don’t see how you can avoid the necessity of government oversight.
Secondly the government knows nothing about anything.
Amen to that.
- In fact, having watched the less than useful “help†from our beloved gov. all these years, its no wonder very few people with such experience are in a hurry to EVER turn over the health care system to the gov.
Preach on.
- The reason this distinction between “community†as gov/laws, and “community†as the people and their interactions, is that without extensive and consistent civic involvement, nothing will ever change.
And I think the former pushes out the latter. People become less involved when the government takes over a function that the people had previously fulfilled. I think that’s one reason the public schools are so crappy. Parents send their kids off thinking that the government is going to “give” them an education when the truth is that an education isn’t something that can be given at all. It’s something the kid has to work for, and most kids won’t work for it without their parents’ hand in their back.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read anything by Ernest Haycox? The talk about communities puts me in mind of his novel, The Earthbreakers. It’s about early settlers arriving in Oregon, and starting a new community. That’s my model for what a healthy community is like.
Comment by happyfeet on 4/24 @ 4:54 pm #
and to the Government I stick my middle finger up with regards to the Criminal Justice Bill
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 4:57 pm #
Ards – We disagree without being disagreeable. Y’all are much smarter than I, and I know I am a bit hypocritical on this topic. My position was not reasoned into, nor will anyone reason me out of it.
You know when I first suspected I might have a problem? One of my fraternity brothers substituted JD for Keith Richards in a joke about how drugs cannot be that bad if Richards is still alive.
Comment by Civilis on 4/24 @ 5:11 pm #
…You cannot sue someone for breech of contract in the drug trade….
daley – you can still get it for asthma cause some court or whatever knocked the ban down but the Diet Fuel people etc. went ahead and got out cause of litigation fears.
Who in their right mind would sell legalized drugs, other than perhaps pot, under the current legal climate? What business would voluntarily subject themselves to the risk of a legal judgment that would make the tobacco settlements look like pocket change, coupled with a PR nightmare of epic proportions?
I agree the drug war is a waste of resources, and I don’t care what you ingest as long as it doesn’t impact me. But people talk about drug legalization in isolation from the rest of the government and the legal system. So we trade an inner city crime war for triple the number of police stop-and-sniff DUI checkpoints, and all the money we save from no-knock drug raids goes to welfare programs and government sponsored detox programs. As long as Americans don’t take responsibility on a personal level for their lives, it’s just shuffling governmental power around, from the BATF and DEA to HUD and the FDA. And if Americans took personal responsibility to the point where we could legalize drugs effectively, we wouldn’t need to worry about legalizing them in the first place.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 5:15 pm #
Wonder what the commercial insurance premiums would be for the local drug store?
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 5:34 pm #
I’ll save my long list of brilliant ideas for another day.
Oh, alright. I’m writing it down that you owe me one program for the reformation of inner city society though. :)
Comment by Civilis on 4/24 @ 5:37 pm #
Wonder what the commercial insurance premiums would be for the local drug store?
The fun really starts when some location, probably part of California, either passes a law banning discrimination against drug users or issues a ruling in a court case that drug addiction is a full disability under ADA… only thing I know is that it would be good to be a lawyer.
In a very libertarian society, none of this would be an issue. I have libertarian tendencies in many regards, and I don’t regard a more libertarian nation as a bad thing. But at this point, unless we move society as a whole in that direction, a lot of these libertarian pet projects open up tons of further consequences when taken individually as part of the more socialist US system.
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 5:53 pm #
Ards – We disagree without being disagreeable.
Yeah, that makes it fun.
My position was not reasoned into, nor will anyone reason me out of it.
I won’t try then. It was good talking with you and learning more about you. My experience with drugs was far more brief and less intense. I never got deeply involved, and when I quit it was an easy decision to stick with. Anyone who can keep a quarter gram in the house for more than a month is not yet on the hook. Still, I was always very afraid of becoming addicted. After about a year, I took a look at what I was doing and decided that I had come to the fork in the road. I could either stay on the present path and find my will power slowly eroded, or get out completely. I got out. I had to separate myself from the friends I had been hanging around and find another place to live. My house had become a party house. I moved in with my girlfriend, and we got married within a year. It was a good change.
You know when I first suspected I might have a problem? One of my fraternity brothers substituted JD for Keith Richards in a joke about how drugs cannot be that bad if Richards is still alive.
lol. Yeah, that would be a wake up call. He’s a poster boy for the ravages of drugs. I’m amazed that he’s still around.
Comment by JD on 4/24 @ 6:08 pm #
Ards – As I said, you are one of those aliens that could stop. 1/4 grams were morning pick-me-ups.
This is a tough problem. No easy solutions, and some of the obvious ones have incredibly high potential risks.
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 7:19 pm #
Including, I might add, the guys who dreamed up the founding architecture of divided American power, a significantly curtailed central power, personal rights trumping state interest virtually every time, zero statism with regard to organized belief, and by the very tone and evidence of their time, damn little social government. If those boys hadn’t been bitten by the reactionary bug, none have.
A profoundly important point and one I’ve never been able to make successfully — you have to have seen it yourself and yes, it involves a very dedicated, long-term effort.
Spend a few weeks in your statehouse to learn just how prevalent special interest is in establishing entirely arbitrary, unconstitutional rules of life for the American subject. Whether the NOW or MADD, the NRA or the powerful friend of any Democrat and most Republicans, surely, laws are bought and paid for with political power.
How does this dovetail with your constitutional rights? It simply doesn’t. And surely the legislator can’t be bothered to care in his or her primary quest, which is the reelection that bargains in yet more political favors. I mean, that’s what we have supreme courts for figure the legislators, provided any one statute offends a substantial enough base to mount a case.
Which rarely happens, at least on purely rights-based, constitutional grounds. Ask yourself, given the usual candidate suspects, are we more like a nation of apathetic dependents or a nation devoted to responsible self-government?
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 7:22 pm #
daleyrocks is immune to that line of reasoning, Jim in KC. Already tried it. Turns out I’m Paulian and or hate the common good or something.
Comment by JHoward on 4/24 @ 7:32 pm #
I understand the Constitution Party, which I’d never heard of before this week, has surpassed the Libertarians in popularity. If the Libertarians really are a bunch of pot-smoking slackers who want by-subscription fire departments, I’d say this is a good thing.
As an added note directed to no one in particular, it’s got to be the height of irony that folks attached to the Republican Party view Libertarians — or these constitutionalist guys — as distinctly different than, well, conservatism.
Small “conservative” government, 2008-style: http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/subjectareas/gov/docs_abbrev
Comment by Darleen on 4/24 @ 8:31 pm #
JHoward
That’s because so many Libertarians (big L) are just warmed over libertines.
Part of responsibility to self is respect of others as responsible individuals. Too many Libertarians use their “individuality” as a kind of frat boy pass to act according to gut then mock any complainers as neo-authoritarians.
There are legitimate government functions – securing the rights of citizens, protecting citizens and providing a {close as possible) neutral forum in which disputes can be resolved. To that end, we have a representative government, limiting constitution, judiciary, military and police. We also ban violence between citizens as a mean of settling disputes and allow a limited monopoly on violence in our enforcement branch (military, police).
Part of the public trust is voluntary relations … citizens are obligated to each other to deal with each other honestly and without force. So fraud (a form of theft), theft, et al, are outlawed. Such behavior violates the voluntary compact of a society based on liberty.
As a business person, my obligation is to get your business honestly … I cannot lie to you and I cannot sell you tainted goods. While some current illegal drugs could be decriminalized, I honestly believe you can no more legalize ALL dangerous drugs (present and future) then you could have the government turn it’s back on bathtub cheese teeming with listeria and salmonella that poisons a neighborhood.
I believe there is no absolute answer either way. Like most issues, the practical and pragmatic has to be part of any solution and it is never going to satisfy the ideologues on either side of the issue.
Comment by Defenseman Emeritus on 4/24 @ 8:42 pm #
I was reading an interview with Keith Richards in a magazine and in the interview Keith Richards intimated that kids should not do drugs. Keith Richards! Says that kids should not do drugs! Keith, we can’t do any more drugs because you already fucking did them all, alright! There’s none left! We have to wait ’till you die and smoke your ashes! Jesus Christ!
-Denis Leary
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 4/24 @ 10:29 pm #
- “….here’s none left! We have to wait ’till you die and smoke your ashes!”
- Rumor has it he’d make for very stale blunts. But while you were puffing you’d notice he has a good beat, and he’s be easy to dance too.
Comment by daleyrocks on 4/24 @ 10:38 pm #
daleyrocks is immune to that line of reasoning, Jim in KC. Already tried it.
JHoward – In spite of your snark, I am not familiar with Tenth Amendment arguments against Federal drug laws. If they are similar to other Tenth Amendement arguments against federal regulations I am unlikely to be impressed. When you use the word enforcement I presume you are talking about the state and local levels, but since I’m not familiar with your argument I have no fucking clue. Are you mixing federal and state again cupcake? Why not just spell it out for the uneducated proles who do not speak Paulian.
Most of your arguments seem written to impress rather than persuade. Taking a page from Glenn Greenwald, above (218) you ludicrously claim that your constitution has been shredded without presenting any actionable evidence. Do you expect people to take your bloviations seriously?
Comment by Matt, Esq. on 4/24 @ 11:36 pm #
Nobody addressed what I was saying- which is fine because its minor BUT
Like when people say “we cant afford the war in Iraq” and I say “why are we sending billions of my tax dollars to combat aids in africa ?”
From a conservative standpoint, I think the money should be directed at the actual problems facing this country, not some disease in a foreign country or a drug war that will never be won if its spread so thin.
Hey, its not like I blame people for ignoring me- however, from someone who’s seen the effects on the system first hand, pot is the least of our problems, from a tax and spend perspective. Just my opinion. However, I’ve been really enjoying my favorite4 commentators (who will remain nameless due to ego, except for Ric Locke, who I love like a brother).
Comment by Ardsgaine on 4/24 @ 11:42 pm #
That’s because so many Libertarians (big L) are just warmed over libertines.
That is unfortunately true. I have no patience at all with anarchists. I don’t know how anyone can treat that as a serious position.
While some current illegal drugs could be decriminalized, I honestly believe you can no more legalize ALL dangerous drugs (present and future) then you could have the government turn it’s back on bathtub cheese teeming with listeria and salmonella that poisons a neighborhood.
Obviously, you cannot sell poison to an unwitting customer. If you misrepresent your product you are responsible morally and legal for what happens. So new drugs would have to be tested, and the customers would have to be fully informed of the drug’s effects. Drugs that are already well known… well, I don’t believe anyone has the right to sue liquor companies because they have cirrhosis of the liver. We’ve known for ages what the bad effects of alcohol are. That’s true also of the drugs out there today. Meth might be an exception. The general principle, though, is that as long as the customer is informed, the company is not culpable.
It is reasonable to argue, though, that a drug is so poisonous that the very act of selling it as something ingestible is an act of fraud. “Try our new cyanide pills.” Yeah, that’s automatically a criminal act. I’m not sure that meth is at that level of poison, but I agree in principle with that line of argument.
Like most issues, the practical and pragmatic has to be part of any solution and it is never going to satisfy the ideologues on either side of the issue.
I think you did a good job sketching out the right principles, so it’s then a matter of determining how they apply. I compare it to physics. You have to have the right principles and understand how they apply in the context where you’re using them.
Comment by Addicted to meth? on 8/10 @ 12:02 pm #
Free yourself from meth addiction now!