Should drugs be legalized in the USA ?

[-Concho-]

Originally posted by bigsky
how many billions of dollars do we spend each year through taxes to pay for law enforcement, and insurance to pay for the property crimes that people commit to suport there habits? ive seen too many work-a-day people get ripped off so the thief can sell there stuff for ten cents on there dollar of what they payed for it to buy dope. most of your law enforcement types dont want them decriminalized because they would be out of a job. just think about it; the entire DEA, 30% to 50% of the police and proscuters, thousands of insurance adjusters and, my god, just think of all the people who would half to be let out of prison and there guards. and think of all the pawnshops loan/check cashing shops who would take a very serious hit to there bottom line. if you legalized drugs they would have to go out and get real jobs where they would have to show some sort of accomplishment, not like now where the worse they do the more money we have to give them. all those people hitting the job market would cause a resession. no friends illegal drugs is a very big business in this country. you shouldnt look at is cops vs. crooks, no. look at is cops+crooks both walking hand-in-hand to the bank with our money. and they will never let drugs be legalized because they would lose the most important thing, CONTROL

You seem to be very well versed on the subject.  Is this knowledge you have gained from life expirence or from something you read on the intenet?

We tend to waste billions of dollars each year trying prevent/solve murders but they still happen... want legalize murder too?

As far as people going to prison for drugs, in Texas you have to have over 50 lbs of pot in your possession to be a felon.  Casual use?  The people in your prisons are your transporters and your hard core drug addicts, not your casual tokers.  

I also think your estimate of "Cops" who would loose thier jobs is a bit hi, The federal agencies like Customs and DEA are into way many more things than just illegal drugs.  Who do you think regulates pharmacies? DEA.  Who do you think tries to keep foreign child porn out? Customs.  The rest of the state and local agencies only have small depts. dedicated to narcotics and I can swear to you that there are MUCH bigger fish out there other than your two joints in his pocket toker.

You are correct about corruption.  Even in my own department (Texas DPS) there has been instances of corruption, but it is very very limited and when it is found the "dirty cop" is terminated.  There will always be corruption as long as there are people.  Greed is a mighty thing.


please forgive my spelling

[rpm]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
The Bong thing is a waste of taxpayers money, Asscroft needs to go.  Pot should be legalized and treated/taxed like alcohol.

A sign of the apocalypse...Rip and I totally agree on something!

[capt. apathy]

The people in your prisons are your transporters and your hard core drug addicts, not your casual tokers.

around here it's handled like a traffic ticket for less than an oz,  however when I lived in missouri I worked with a guy (19 yrs old) who did 6 months in county for a piece of tin foil with some resin on it.  (rolled up the foil for a 1 hit pipe to smoke maybe a 1/4 gram)

as far as the money dedicated to it, we have had huge budget problems around here the last couple years.  they have laid-off some of the OSP.  we even had a few months where they quit prosecuting property crimes if they where under a certain dollar amount.  (mostly car stereo theft and the like)

but all through that time when they wouldn't prossecute or even arest those guys, the pot busts just kept comming, bussines as usual.

when making funding cuts crimes with victims should be the priority for enforcement, the local bicycle theif should be an arest priority above someone growning pot.

as a taxpayer I'd rather they let that guy grown his dope and spend some time finding the dirtbag who took the stereo outta my jeep.

and in oregon they grow some of the worlds finest weed (I've been told  ).  and since the fishing and logging have gone to hell it's likely our biggest cash crop.  why not tax it and use the money for something worth while instead of all the money staying in the drug trade (either in the hands of dealers or in the hands of enforcement)

the other cost is that it puts a huge segment of our society seeing the cops as 'the enemy'.  how much easier would the cops job be if your average guy on  the street was glad to see him come by.  as it is the drug laws turn kids against cops at a young age.  they see friends and niegbors arested for crimes where they have hurt no one,  while on the other hand when crime effects them (bike stolen or the like) the cops have more important things to deal with.

I'd be currious to see the budget for my (or any major cities) cities police department,  how many of our police dollars are spent on property crimes, and how much on drug enforcement.

[Bodhi]

Drugs should not be legalised in this country, and I am confident in saying that they will not be for quite some time to come.

Lastly for those of you advocating allowing them as population control, I suggest you think about the impact that "population control" will have on you, should you ever have someone close to you succomb to this scourge of our country.

I have, and it hurts to think that we do not do more to interdict and punish the dealers and trafficers of these substances.   They are dealer's of death and plain and simply should be treated as murderers.

[Ripper29]

In some states they already are...kind of...

Marijuana legal again in homes, Alaska court rules

Juneau Daily News Online

(Published: August 29, 2003) Marijuana legal again for use by adults in their own homes in Alaska The Alaska Court of Appeals has re-legalized the use of marijuana by adults in private homes.

The court handed down its decision Friday and directed state Attorney General Greg Renkes to review the case and make recommendations on how the state should proceed.
The court heard the appeal by David S. Noy, who was convicted of possessing less than 8 ounces of marijuana in his home.

Noy had appealed his conviction, arguing that he was convicted for engaging in conduct that is protected under the privacy provision of the Alaska State Constitution.

The Appeals Court agreed that Noys' conduct was constitutionally protected.

In its decision released Friday, the Court says Alaska citizens have the right to posses less than 4 ounces of marijuana in their home for personal use.

The Appeals Court cited the Alaska Supreme Courts' Raven decision in 1975, that the state Constitution protects possession of marijuana by adults for personal use in one's own home.

In 1990, Alaska voters approved a ballot proposition that re-criminalized the possession of any amount of marijuana by making a Class B Misdemeanor.

Possession and use of marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

[Maniac]

Legalize it all,

Maybe then you guys will loosen up some...

[Charon]

Here are some drug war facts (credible sources) from, surprisingly enough, http://www.drugwarfacts.org/ They  require some reading and effort, so I don’t expect many people to let them get in the way of misinformed opinions. However, here they are:

"Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constituted the largest group of Federal inmates (55%) in 2001, down from 60% in 1995 (table 18). On September 30, 2001, the date of the latest available data in the Federal Justice Statistics Program, Federal prisons held 78,501 sentenced drug offenders, compared to 52,782 in 1995." Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2002 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, July 2003), p. 11.

"The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by the Cayman Islands (664), Russia (638), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan (522), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bahamas (447), Suriname (437) and Dominica (420).
"However, more than three-fifths of countries (62.5%) have rates below 150 per 100,000. (The United Kingdom's rate of 139 per 100,000 of the national population places it above the midpoint in the World List; it is now the highest among countries of the European Union.)" Source: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (Fourth Edition)" (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 2003)

[Edit: Something to be proud of, especially considering the high percentage that are incarcerated for non-violent drug-related crimes]

According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, federal spending on the drug war in 2001 totaled $18.095 Billion, rising to $18.822 Billion in 2002 and $19.179 Billion for 2003. According to ONDCP, the $18.822 Billion spent by the federal government on the drug war in 2002 breaks down as follows:
Treatment (with Research): $3.587 Billion (19.1% of total)
Prevention (with Research): $2.548 Billion (13.5% of total)
Domestic Law Enforcement: $9.513 Billion (50.5% of total)
Interdiction: $2.074 Billion (11.0% of total)
International: $1.098 Billion (5.8% of total) In other words, $12.686 Billion in 2002 was directed to supply reduction, i.e. law enforcement (67.4% of total), and $6.136 Billion to demand reduction, i.e. treatment, prevention and education (32.6% of total). Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary"

"In 1999 the United States spent a record $147 billion for police protection, corrections, and judicial and legal activities. The Nation’s expenditure for operations and outlay of the justice system increased 309% from almost $36 billion in 1982 (the rise of the Drug War). Discounting inflation, that represents a 145% increase in constant dollars." Source: Gifford, Sidra Lea, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 1999

"Overall, local police spending represented 31.1% of the Nation's total justice expenditure, and State corrections accounted for the second largest portion, 23.7%."
Source: Gifford, Sidra Lea, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 1999

According to a 1998 article published in the University of Chicago Law Review, the ability of law enforcement agencies to financially benefit from forfeited assets, and the provision of large block grants from Congress to fight the drug trade "have distorted governmental policy making and law enforcement." The authors believe that "the law enforcement agenda that targets assets rather than crime, the 80 percent of seizures that are unaccompanied by any criminal prosecution, the plea bargains that favor drug kingpins and penalize the 'mules' without assets to trade, the reverse stings that target drug buyers rather than drug sellers, the overkill in agencies involved in even minor arrests, the massive shift in resources towards federal jurisdiction over local law enforcement - is largely the unplanned by-product of this economic incentive structure."  Source: Blumenson, E. & and Nilsen, E., "Policing for Profit: The Drug War's Hidden Economic Agenda," University of Chicago Law Review, 65: 35-114 (1998, Winter).

Federal forfeitures totaled approximately $730 million in 1994. Source: Heilbroner, D., "The Law Goes on a Treasure Hunt," The New York Times, (1994, December 11), Section 6, p. 70, (quoting the 1992 testimony of Cary H. Copeland, then director of the Justice Department's executive-office asset forfeiture unit).

During a 10-month national survey, it was discovered that 80% of people who had property forfeited were never charged with a crime.
Source: Schneider, A. & Flaherty, M.P., "Presumed Guilty: The Law's Victims in the War on Drugs," The Pittsburgh Press, (1991, August 11).

Note: Different Source

From The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98dec/prisons.htm

Three decades after the war on crime began, the United States has developed a prison-industrial complex -- a set of bureaucratic, political, and economic interests that encourage increased spending on imprisonment, regardless of the actual need…It is a confluence of special interests that has given prison construction in the United States a seemingly unstoppable momentum. It is composed of politicians, both liberal and conservative, who have used the fear of crime to gain votes; impoverished rural areas where prisons have become a cornerstone of economic development; private companies that regard the roughly $35 billion spent each year on corrections not as a burden on American taxpayers but as a lucrative market; and government officials whose fiefdoms have expanded along with the inmate population…

The inner workings of the prison-industrial complex can be observed in the state of New York, where the prison boom started, transforming the economy of an entire region; in Texas and Tennessee, where private prison companies have thrived; and in California, where the correctional trends of the past two decades have converged and reached extremes…

In addition to the more than $1.5 billion spent to build correctional facilities, the prisons now bring the North Country about $425 million in annual payroll and operating expenditures. That represents an annual subsidy to the region of more than $1,000 per person. The economic impact of the prisons extends beyond the wages they pay and the local services they buy. Prisons are labor-intensive institutions, offering year-round employment. They are recession-proof, usually expanding in size during hard times. And they are nonpolluting -- an important consideration in rural areas where other forms of development are often blocked by environmentalists. Prisons have brought a stable, steady income to a region long accustomed to a highly seasonal, uncertain economy.

Note: Different Source
The Future of Freedom Foundation
a Libertarian organization

The October 14 (2001) issue of the Washington Post reported that Washington area police and sheriffs' departments garnered a bonanza of nearly $2.2 million last year from the war on drug's asset-forfeiture laws. Eighty percent of the proceeds of confiscated assets went to local police and sheriff's departments. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) kept the rest to cover the expenses of administering the program.

Note: Different Source
http://www.tinotopia.com/
(a neat summary)

So why are we surprised that the Drug War continues? On a regular basis, the California Correctional Peace Officers' Association -- the prison guards' union -- lobbies against any measure in California that would reduce the number of prison admissions. Police departments push for greater powers to seize property of people accused of drug crimes. Other agencies of the government save money by, for instance, denying federal aid to would-be students who have been convicted of any drug-related crimes.

If you don't believe me, read this article from the Seattle Times about an attempt in Washington to require that people actually be convicted before their property is seized by the government. In part, it says:
And the money has become essential for police departments trying to stay on top of rising drug crimes while dealing with tighter budgets. "That'd put us out of business," said Tacoma police spokesman Jim Mattheis.

There you have it in a nutshell. I believe that this is an adequate explanation for a lot of the drug hysteria in the U.S. (which the U.S. then imposes on large parts of the rest of the world): that the government needs another source of revenue.

Whether this source of revenue would be necessary were the government not spending so much on the drug war is a question I will leave unexamined for the time being. In any case, this is the only explanation I've been able to think of that fits the circumstances. If you look at the government's actions not as any attempt to arrive at some kind of justice, but rather as the actions of a business with something to sell -- police and incarceration services, in this case -- the Drug War makes prefect sense.

[Edit: All of this sounds like some special/self interest to me.]

Cont.

[Charon]

In January 2001, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University published an analysis of costs to states from tobacco, alcohol and other drug addiction. According to the report, "CASA's analysis revealed a few cost categories where only a single category of substances is implicated. (Figure 2.B) For instance, CASA identified $1.1 billion in state spending linked to illicit drug use only: $574 million for public safety costs for drug enforcement programs; $114 million for drug courts; and $412 million linked to illegal drugs in state spending on Medicaid. "CASA estimates that $7.4 billion in state spending is linked exclusively to tobacco through state Medicaid spending. The single drug linked to the largest percentage of state costs is alcohol. We were able to identify $9.2 billion in state spending linked to only to alcohol in addition to the costs associated with abuse of both alcohol and illegal drugs: $915 million on highway safety and local law enforcement associated with drunk driving; $837 million in state costs for the developmentally disabled as a result of fetal alcohol syndrome; and, $7.4 billion in state Medicaid costs." Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets

A 1998 report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) estimated the economic costs of alcohol abuse in the United States to be $148.02 billion in 1992, 80% ($119.32 billion) of which were due to alcohol-related illness (including health care expenditures, impaired productivity and premature death). To contrast, illegal drug abuse cost a total of $97.66 billion in 1992, of which less than 40% ($38.71 billion) was due to drug-related illness or premature death. This figure includes $4.16 billion in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis treatment costs.
Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992 (Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, May 1998), Table 1.1, p. 1-3 and Table 4.1, p. 4-2.

[edit: And alcohol is still legal, how can that be? Maybe the only illegal drugs should be those I don’t use!]

It costs approximately $8.6 billion a year to keep drug law violators behind bars. Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of Jail Inmates 1996 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, April 1996), pp. 1 & 4; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997), pp. 10-11; Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., The Corrections Yearbook 1997 (South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., 1997) [estimating cost of a day in jail on average to be $55.41 a day, or $20,237 a year, and the cost of prison to be on average to be about $64.49 a day, or $23,554 a year].

[Edit: Money well spent on the 21-year-old caught trying to buy a pound of pot.]

A study by the RAND Corporation found that every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs.  Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi. The RAND Corporation study found that additional domestic law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs.  Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.

[Edit: I guess the law enforcement and prison/industrial lobbies have more clout than healthcare in Washington.]

A 1998 report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) estimated the economic costs of illegal drug abuse in the United States to be $97.66 billion in 1992. Sixty percent (60%) of drug costs were due to drug-related law enforcement, incarceration and crime. Only 3% of drug costs were from victims of drug-related crime. Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992 (Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, May 1998), Table 1.2, pp. 1-6.

"Although serious drug use is slightly more prevalent in poor minority neighborhoods than elsewhere, the major problem for disadvantaged neighborhoods is drug distribution. These communities are victims not only of their own drug abuse but also of a criminal drug market that serves the entire society. The market establishes itself in disadvantaged communities in part because of the low social capital in these neighborhoods. The drug economy further erodes that social capital." Source: Saxe, Leonard, PhD, Charles Kadushin, PhD, Andrew Beveridge, PhD, et al., "The Visibility of Illicit Drugs: Implications for Community-Based Drug Control Strategies," American Journal of Public Health (Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, Dec. 2001), Vol. 91, No. 12, p. 1992.

[edit: Seems like the war on drugs causes more problems than the drugs themselves.]

In 1969, $65 million was spent by the Nixon administration on the drug war; in 1982 the Reagan administration spent $1.65 billion; in 2000 the Clinton administration spent more than $17.9 billion; and in 2002, the Bush administration spent more than $18.822 billion. Sources: U.S. Congress, Hearings on Federal Drug Enforcement before the Senate Committee on Investigations, 1975 and 1976 (1976); Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy, 1992: Budget Summary (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 214; Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Budget Executive Summary, Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington DC: Executive Office of the President, April 9, 2001), p. 2, Table 1: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary" (Washington, DC: Office of the President, February 2002), Table 2, p. 6.

[Edit: Hey, Clinton supported the war on Drugs about as strongly as GWB -- it must be valid!]

The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on marijuana explained that marijuana has been mistaken for a gateway drug in the past because "Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana -- usually before they are of legal age."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).

A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association on cannabis and its possible role as a gateway drug found that "While covariates differed between equations, early regular use of tobacco and alcohol emerged as the 2 factors most consistently associated with later illicit drug use and abuse/dependence. While early regular alcohol use did not emerge as a significant independent predictor of alcohol dependence, this finding should be treated with considerable caution, as our study did not provide an optimal strategy for assessing the effects of early alcohol use." Source: Lynskey, Michael T., PhD, et al., "Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 289 No. 4, January 22/29, 2003, online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v289n4/rfull/joc21156.html, last accessed Jan. 31, 2003.

[Edit: The tired, and broadly debunked Gateway Drug myth]

There’s a lot more. It’s not that hard to find for anyone with an interest. A final piece: http://www.drugwardistortions.org/

Charon

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Maniac
Legalize it all,

Maybe then you guys will loosen up some...

why - don't partake in the "legal" ones now

it would surely cause substance abuse to increase - the money spent to fight the war would still be spent and then some in rehab and unemployment as they lost their job failing their drug tests

sober is the answer - but please continue to cry for your crutches ...

[Curval]

The costs don't only extend to actual enforcement on the "streets".  Every day I have to deal with the rigmorole of "due dilligence" to ensure than funds we handle are not proceeds of crime.  For the most part it involves the efforts to stop the drug tzars from washing and ultimately using their money.

It costs BILLIONS of dollars trying to police this in the financial sector of the worldwide economies.

Make the drugs legal and regulate them...and "voila" it all goes away.  Then we can concentrate on doing business.

[rpm]

It's just a Cash Cow for Law Enforcement. First they seize the property (you have to prove everything they seize was NOT drug profit or it automatically is). Then they get court costs, fines, probation fees, councelling fees, testing fees, ect,ect,ect. Oh, don't forget all the Federal Grant monies received for programs like DARE (Yeah, that one really worked), special Task Forces, Officer hirings and overtime. And that's just on the local level. They boast of the Mules captured smuggling pot across the border. If it was legalized there would not be the Mules, we could grow it right here in the US and make ALL the profits and taxes. Heck, the profit off Marijuana Tax and Permits could fund the enforcement of laws for actual dangerous drugs like Cocaine, Heroin, and Meth. Try reading The LaGuardia Committee Report on Marijuana or the findings of the Shafer Commission (which Nixon threw out because he didn't like what he heard). They debunked all the myths about the "Gateway Drug" and the harm it supposedly causes. Once again this is a carbon copy of what happened with alcohol during Prohibition, and we all know what a failed experiment that was.

[capt. apathy]

and unemployment as they lost their job failing their drug tests

actually if the drugs where legal you'd have a to develope a test that shows if you are under the influence at the time of the test.  much more relivant from a work place safety standpoint than the current 'have you smoked any in the last 30 days' test.

and even if you still could fire people for participating in a legal activity,  what makes you think they'd have any harder of a time cheating than they do now?

actually the reverse of your argument may very well be true, as those people who are curently out of work due to failed ua's would then be eligable to go back to work.

[mora]

Originally posted by Eagler
it would surely cause substance abuse to increase - the money spent to fight the war would still be spent and then some in rehab and unemployment as they lost their job failing their drug tests

Why would it increase substance abuse? You have the strickest drug laws in the western world and also most cops per capita, yet you have the greatest %of drug users. As someone mentioned it's easier to get your hands on illicit drugs than alcohol. Just look at Netherlands for example:http://www.trimbos.nl/Downloads/English_General/Cannabis2002_Report.pdf

Do you honestly think that edging out people because of something they do on their own time is going to help to reduce the harmful effects that drugs have on society?

[lazs2]

When I and my friends dealt drugs there was allways violence at some point in the cycle.   lower down the rung there was very little but still some.   Major violence at the top or near it.

I don't know what to do about drugs... my inclination is to legalize and at the same time impose harsher penalties for abuse.  

Abuse would be trace amounts of even pot in your system if you were driving.   I would say that if you used pot regularly.... you should pretty much forfiet your drivers licence..  Unemployment or welfare benifiets should be cancelled if mandatory drug tests show positive.

employers should have a no fault ability to fire if drugs show up in mandatory tests.

simply legalizing drugs without making the druggies responsible for their actions is not fair to everyone else.
lazs

[Curval]

Originally posted by lazs2
Abuse would be trace amounts of even pot in your system if you were driving.   I would say that if you used pot regularly.... you should pretty much forfiet your drivers licence..  Unemployment or welfare benifiets should be cancelled if mandatory drug tests show positive.

employers should have a no fault ability to fire if drugs show up in mandatory tests.

simply legalizing drugs without making the druggies responsible for their actions is not fair to everyone else.
lazs

All of this should apply in equal terms for alcohol.