This is a good decision from the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court called Monday for a retreat from the strict national sentencing guidelines set during the “war on drugs” of the 1980s, ruling that federal judges may set prison terms well below those recommendations.[…]
In 1986 — alarmed by the sudden increase in the use of crack — Congress applied harsh mandatory minimums to crack-related crimes. As the court’s majority opinion noted Monday, legislators apparently believed that crack was highly addictive, that its users were more prone to violence, that it was more harmful to users than powder — especially to children whose mothers had smoked crack during pregnancy — and that its low cost and short but intense high made it particularly popular among young people.
Under the law, dealing 5 grams of crack could send a seller to prison for five years — the same sentence imposed for 500 grams of powder cocaine.
No question that crack is highly addictive. But the problem is two-fold:
First, Congress made an arbitrary decision because it was good politics. No surprise there; that happens all the time (see sex offender registries) More importantly though, this law disproportionately affects minorities. I’m not sure the intent was to do that, but as is nearly always the case in feel-good lawmaking, it was certainly the effect. Crack is a much cheaper drug than powdered cocaine and, therefore, became much more prevalent in the African American community and other communities with lower income levels. The result was that African Americans were the chief targets of the law. Many hundreds of thousands of them are in jail for much longer periods because they couldn’t afford the powdered version.
But that’s just me. What do you think? Personally, I think the “War on Drugs” is nothing but a scam perpetrated by politicians who’d rather you focus on that than their own incompetence. It’s a feel-good, reactive “war.” I don’t blame this on the Bush administration – it’s been going on far longer than this – but if Bush and future presidents want an example where pre-emptive war is a good idea, then this is certainly one where that philosophy would work. Legalize or decriminalize drugs like pot and pardon every single person who is serving or has served time for it. Then, find other ways to deal with harsher addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth.
I’ve no problem with major dealers being incarcerated. My problem is with recreational users-turned-addicts being put in jail. Not only does it cost you and me many, many billions of dollars a year, it accomplishes nothing to solve any drug problem we have in this country.
bob
Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. These are the perpetrators of the drug war. Carter is looking better and better. Energy policy. No drug war. No Iran Contra. No Crack. What was it that made him bad, anyway? I forget. Couldn’t have been the recession that started with the first oil embargo and intensified with the end of the war in Viet Nam and didn’t end until the Clinton administration, could it? Yep, all Carter’s fault for that. So what was it?
Psycheout
LOL!
Bruce Baugh
Wow! That really is good news, and doubly so for being unexpected. Thanks for posting about this, Michael. Every bit of sanity when it comes to drugs is welcome – there are real problems of drug abuse and behavior that’s dangerous to others that too often get neglected thanks to the obsession with things that aren’t making any risks.
Psycheout
Mike, you’re a dumbass. Crack use disproportionately affects minorities. Catch a clue someday.
Psycheout
Meth use is more prevalent in the gay community, so I guess you’ll be lobbying for leniency for speedfreaks next. You make me sick, you liberal. You’re no conservative if you’re soft on crime, weirdo.
JR
Conservatives make the world sick. Iran Contra was perpetrated by the right wing so-called conservatives, complete with CIA drug trafficking of crack into the inner cities.
THAT is why the minimum sentencing guidelines were set to prosecute crack cocaine harshly, and why mandatory sentencing was put in place. It was to wage war on the inner city.
The actual “weirdos” are the small tools like Psycho here who endlessly accuse others of being what they are. They will do whatever damage they are allowed to do, and slowly be exorcised by the march of time.
Cindrella Ferret
Shorter Psycheout: Mike is a dumbass queer liberal because of his libertarian stance on drugs.
Michael, well said. I look at drug use the same way I look at Gun use. If you use them responsibly–fine. If you commit a crime you go to jail. Do not criminalize possession. Drugs, getting shot, and a whole host of other things are bad for your health, but that does not mean possession should be made a criminal offense.
Besides, making drugs legal would bring down the price of brown acid, and that would be a good thing. The first couple of years would be a little rough, but we could sort it out.
And … you would have some new items for your Fair Tax. *wink*
Against drug use? Don’t take them!
brendancalling
“My problem is with recreational users-turned-addicts being put in jail. Not only does it cost you and me many, many billions of dollars a year, it accomplishes nothing to solve any drug problem we have in this country.”
Also, it becomes a problem for future generations. A good friend of mine is a criminology professor: her work focuses on the aging prison populations that are due for release (especially in the wake of 3-strikes), and the problems associated with that problem, including low/nonexistent work skills, where/how to house them, and a whole plethora of issues.
SPIIDERWEB™
How about this for disparate sentencing. And they even had admissions of guilt on these guys.
Appeal against release of Australian rapists of 10-year-old Australian girl.
Psycheout
Oh, I forgot. Libertarians are just fake Republicans who want to smoke crack.
myiq2xu
The whole concept of putting people in prison to protect them from drugs is flawed.
But who are the “major dealers?” Where do you think all the money in the drug trade goes? Do you really think it all goes to Columbia or Mexico? That may have been partially true with Cocaine and Crack, but with Meth, most of the money stays right here.
It’s in banks, real estate, stocks, bonds and other investments. The guys who have it are the guys who own and operate pharmacuetical companies, chemical manufacturing businesses, banks and car dealerships. Accountants, lawyers, politicians and cops are in on it. They are “legit” members of our local communities. They wash their hands just like they launder the money they make.
Most of the time when a “major dealer” goes to prison, it’s actually some patsy who was set up so the real kingpin could go free. The “major dealer” is just some nobody who thought he was gonna make a big payday for making a delivery but instead gets busted with 20 pounds of heavily cut dope. The cops get their big bust, the real drug dealer walks, everybody is happy except the patsy.
John S.
I think the War on Drugs costs taxpayers billions in resources. I think it costs us precious manpower. I think it costs us further billions in taxable revenue while creating a black market that puts that money into the wrong hands. It’s Prohibition part Deux.
Of course, marijuana will never become legal here because the alcohol and tobacco companies will never let it happen. They prefer you to be hooked on their more lethal and legal drugs.
jake
Couldn’t agree more. I understand there’s work underway to reduce or cut sentences for marijuana. You could go a bit stronger with your race analysis because historically substance abuse laws (including prohibition) have been based on the fact that “the other” uses them. In states where there aren’t that many “others,” state laws tend to be far more lenient because no one wants their kids locked up for decades.
And as an added bonus you seem to have sent resident shit stain Psychopath into an aorta-popping frenzy.
Well done!
… Or he’s trying desperately to get your attention. In which case I recommend large rat traps strewn around your property. Use pictures of Sam Brownback as bait.
Kirk Spencer
Psychout, either you’re a troll, or you just lost control of your braincells.
re “Crack use disproportionately affects minorities.” I’m not sure what you meant by this. It is possible you’re just restating Michael’s point – since it’s cheaper, it’s more likely to be used by the less wealthy, which in turn has a higher proportion of minorities. On the other hand, you could be saying that a non-caucasian is more vulnerable to addiction — the nice way of saying, “all minorities are just druggies and drunks waiting to happen.” If it’s the latter, I’m going to ask you to cite or retract.
re “Meth use is more prevalent in the gay community[.]” Cite or retract. (Hint – meth is cheap. See previous about crack.)
No, I’ve pretty well decided – because of how well you’ve argued other positions – that this was just a troll to see who bites and how hard.
Zifnab
I’ll believe that when I see it.
The beauty of meth was the ability to make it out of everyday household goods like cold medicine. Anybody with an internet connection, a kitchen stove, and some entrepreneurial spirit could turn into a supplier. While I’m sure crime syndicates and dealer chains evolved from that, the idea that the majority of meth money goes into pockets of rich white businessmen is somewhat of a stretch. It would be like implying that everyone who grows weed in their backyard has mob ties.
Either way, I would prefer a “hate the sin, love the sinner” policy in the Drug Enforcement political circuit. But that easily leads back to “hugs for thugs” legislation (or at least the perception of it) which in turn comes under attack by “law and order” types. It’s a nasty fucking problem, because addicts are hard to deal with and drugs bring in tons of money (ask Merck and Pfizer). We need a comprehensive drug program that consistently works to get people off drugs and back into productive society. Without that, simply tossing druggies back onto the street after taking all their stuff doesn’t help anyone any more than locking them up for 20 years.
jake
The wealthy “Freebase” (smoke a rock of dirty coke) the poor smoke crack (a rock of dirty coke).
Of course, the wealthy can also afford attorneys…
Easter Bunny
Decriminalize and regulate all drugs.
Want to know why we have a meth problem? Because regular amphedimines (speed) is illegal, so the market figured out a way to create speed out of household chemicals.
The Other Steve
You have to look at the bright side.
The War on Drugs has kept our unemployment rate low. Without it, we’d have another 2 million people out on the streets searching for work and an unemployment rate of over 10%.
Fe E
Back in the day, the war on drugs/personal liberties was pretty muh tied with degradation of the environment as my chief political concern. Who could’ve guessed, it would take fighting off the impending apocalypse to lower it on my radar scope.
Any step in rationalization of the war on drugs is a good thing, but all drugs should be decrimnalized and dealt with as a public health problem–which is of course what they are.
I’ll head off psycheout’s looming apoplexy (or more likely not, but I’ll take a shot in good faith) and state that ancillary offenses like theft and assault associated with drug use are still emphatically criminal.
I can’t reccommend Peter McWilliams’ book “Ain’t Nobody’s Business if You Do” highly enough for this topic.
LITBMueller
Michael, your are incredibly uninformed on this: First of all, crack dealers and crack users receive completely different sentences. Its the difference between possession charges and possession with the intent to deliver charges. The dealers, of course, get the harsher sentence, and many drug addicts who are clearly just users are ordered into treatment, not just locked up.
Tell me: where do you think crack cocaine comes from? Regular cocaine! Crack dealers often DO purchase powder coke, and then “cook” it in order to make crack. Why do they do this? Because, it allows them to multiply their potential profit by several times: cooking coke into crack increases the amount you have to sell as well as the potency (especially when you consider the street price of crack vs. the street price of coke per gram). And, as an added bonus, its easier to deal on the street, because it is sold in tiny, individual packets – especially when compared to pot and coke.
THAT’S why crack has been dealt with in a much harsher way. Its a completely different drug, and its “advantages” make it incredibly appealing to people who’d rather deal drugs instead of getting a job. Plus, Psycheout is right in that the negative effects of the crack trade disproportionally affect the African American communities in our cities. And, the negative effects go way beyond the dealing and the addicts: there are shootings, thefts, homicides…you name it.
Frankly, those effects come from all drugs. These days, a dime bag of crappy skunked weed is enough to get somebody shot. And, that kind of thing will never be effected by legalizing pot, my friend, because us ‘Muricans love our guns.
Its easy for people who live in the suburbs to just toss around ideas like “legalize drugs!” because they have never dealt with the harsh realities that come with the drug trade in our cities. Believe me: legal or illegal, there with ALWAYS be a black market to provide the same product – whether for a cheaper price, or in order to sell a more potent product (such as pot laced with PCP), and there will ALWAYS be people willing to harm the innocent either to protect or maximize their profit.
Just for fun, go ask a member of MS-13 if they think legalization would stop them in any way.
laneman
Psycheout, can you end the spoof?
PLEASE
It hurts my brain to read you, you are no longer funny.
The WoDs failed, as is the the war on fat, war on terraism and all the other imagined wars that the POTUS generates.
Zifnab
Drugs aren’t like smog or illegal dumping of toxic chemicals. No one runs around trying to get hooked up on mercury in the water supply or air too thick to breath.
But a great deal of the drug trade comes from poverty and the desire for easy money. Give people in Columbia better returns on their coffee beans, and they’ll stop growing cocaine. Give growers in Afghanistan subsidies on their wheat and their rice, and they’ll stop growing poppies. Give Americans access to real universal medical care, and they’ll have access to the doctors and councilors and psychiatrists they need, rather than having them run out to their local street corners for self-medication.
Michael D.
Psycheout: That was SOOOO last week. This week, it’s LMQAO!
Fe E
Zif, I meant that it was my sense of environmentalism that kept me from thinking the libertarians might be on to something. I’ve sort of decided that “Environmentalist-Civil-Libertarian, who believes in a strong social safety net” best describes my political philosophy.
And LITBMueller; how long have humans been trying to catch a buzz, and how many times have authoities tried to stamp it out? How many times have they succeeded? There ARE a mulitude of problems that stem from drug use–and they are pretty much invarably made worse by attempts at prohibition. Tax evasion might’ve been what put Al Capone behind bars, but it was repeal of prohibition that stopped brive by shootings over booze.
Michael D.
I’m not sure that’s feasible. Do you really think we could pay nearly enough for coffee and wheat that it would come anywhere close to what they’re getting from Opium and Cocaine?
Just asking. I don’t know. I don’t think people will pay $25 for a cup of coffee or $18 for a loaf of bread (numbers I pulled out of nowhere, but seem to be at least what it would take.)
Fe E
I love it when I spot the typo just after I hit “submit.”
Sigh.
Fe E
The price of opium and coca is right now kept artifically high because of its illegality. It’s an artifical shortage, and one created in such a way the ensures only the most violent and sociopathic seek to capitalize on. Pablo Escobar might’ve been baaddddd-aaaassss, but without the threat of prison keeping them at bay RJR Nabisco pr Philip Morris would’ve made him their bitch.
Libby Spencer
Mueller you are victim of prohibition progaganda. There is no difference between cocaine and crack. That’s like saying a boiled egg is a completely different food item than a scrambled egg. The disparity in sentencing is not just between levels of offense. Crack carries a 100 times greater penalty than the same weight of powder cocaine. There are numerous studies that prove the impact of this sentencing falls much more heavily on minorities. It’s also not more addictive.
This decision is good on a number of levels. If I read it correctly, SCOTUS just affirmed that sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, as they have been treated until now. I would also note the Sentencing Commission just recommended the penalities be equalized and they are due to announce today whether this should be applied retroactively, which would impact thousands of currently incarcerated offenders.
As for cops not wanting to legalize drugs, I would refer you to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, whose membership has grown from a handful of former cops to well over a thousand, last time I checked.
The war on some drugs is a money pit and a dismal failure. Interdiction and incarceration doesn’t work to eliminate drug abuse. All this approach has done is create the largest prison system in the world. We jail more people than China. We have more people in jail for just drugs than the entirety of Western Europe does for all crimes combined.
Treating addiction as a public health problem works. There are successful programs in other countries that prove it not only reduces drug abuse but also the related crime. Meanwhile, there are millions of people who use drugs responsibly and are otherwise law abiding citizens who contribute to their communities. Criminalizing their personal conduct makes no sense.
The effect of prohitibition and failed drug war tactics have caused far more damage than the use or even abuse of drugs. It’s time to get smart on drugs. Being tough on drugs is just stupid.
*
Looks like Mueller has seen one too many After School Specials.
Incertus (Brian)
Racism might not have been the cause for the legislation, but it sure hampered any attempts to modify it once it was in place.
Rolling Stone has an amazing piece on the war on drugs in its latest issue as well. Worth looking at.
Xanthippas
That’s true, but let’s not forget that they can only get away with this because most Americans support harsh stances on crime. That’s why it’s always politically feasible to “get tough” on crime, even if the laws are already tough but fair.
Libby Spencer
Oh, and as far as providing an alternative economy for the growers, the farmers are at the bottom of the chain. They aren’t making the big bucks. It would cost the government less to just buy their crops outright than it does to bomb them herbicides and hand eradication. In fact, the UK government in contemplating taking just such an approach in Afghanistan.
The processors and the cartels make the money. The farmers barely make enough to survive, which is still better than starving by trying to grow crops that they can’t sell, or can’t get to market because the transport structure is so poor. So creating a viable economy for a licit product would work. This has been done successfully in Thailand.
Zifnab
You don’t have to match the returns. If I get paid $1 / 100lbs of coffee and $10 / 100lbs of coke, sometimes all you have to do is hike it up to $4 / 100lbs of coffee and growers will weigh the $6 return against the US government napalming your grove.
I mean, I could quit my job and become a professional mobster. But while the job might pay well, the risks of being in the mob kinda outweigh that. But if working at my 9-5 job wasn’t paying the bills, and I had no other trade skills, I might look to other more lucrative options outside the legal scope.
Some of these farmers wouldn’t receive a living wage from legitimate business. And I already pay $25 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks. So why would I object?
grumpy realist
Michael, bravo for this. I agree with you 100%.
You should also mention the unfortunately long number of innocents killed by overzealous SWAT teams who have been told by some punk that dealing is occuring in location X, don’t bother to check the veracity of this, go in with guns blazing, and shoot up some poor innocent who’s the victim of their error/stupidity. So sorry we killed your kid, m’am….
The only reason I see that this country puts up with this is because all of this is happening in lower-income areas.
Oh, and if you want to look at who takes meth the most, I would say “rural poor” are right up there as well.
(My own drug liberalization policy would be: you can smoke/ingest anything you grow in your back yard. No chemical purification–pot and unpurified opium yes, cocaine and heroin no.)
croatoan
Rolling Stone, How America Lost the War on Drugs.
Col.Smeag
How about we turn the tables here. We start by giving shorter prison sentences and at the same time give the crackhead, meth users, etc all the drugs they want in prison. After 30 days we will probaly be able to reuse the cell. Get a clue! Drugs are simply a long slow suicide, which you don’t hear very many people lobbying for healthy people to be able to kill themselves any time the want. By the way the Democrats were in control of congress in 1986 not the Republicans. They could have done something about drugs too since Congress writes the checks. But if you haven’t studied basic US Goverment you would never know that.
libarbarian
Great Anti-DrugWar Vid:
“Ask your Spin Doctor about Incarcerex”
libarbarian
Yeah, and the Soviet Gulags were perpetrated by so-called leftists complete with domestic patsies, useful idiots, and simple subhuman scum like Walter Duranty – the NYT reporter who “reported” there was no famine in the Ukraine even while he coldly watched people die all around him.
This is fun. Lets dig up more old shit from the past and then blame people today for what other people did before them. I’ll bet its even more fun with religion.
Bob In Pacifica
H-A-S-E-N-F-U-S. It’s not the weapons flying into the war zone. It’s what’s being flown out. Follow the money. Follow the flight logs.
uh_clem
Of course, marijuana will never become legal here because the alcohol and tobacco companies will never let it happen.
Marijuana will never become legal because the Marijuana industry will never let it happen. Look, Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the US – bigger than corn, bigger than wheat, bigger than any crop. It’s expensive because it’s illegal – make it legal and it’ll sell for less than alfalfa sprouts.
Does this large industry have lobbyists looking out for their interest? Of course they do, every industry does. And what’s the most important thing to keep the prices high so the business remains profitable? Why, keep it illegal, of course.
The alcohol and tobacco companies would be happy to diversify into another product. They’re not the problem.
mark
Republicans are just fake Libertarians who want to be Big Brother, not prevent him.
douglasfactors
uh_clem, do you really think the marijuana industry has a significant lobbying arm, much less one commensurate with its size?
And even if they did, what politician would risk getting near it?
Chris
(Limbaugh Troll says…)
I’m laughing so hard that there are tears seeping out of my eyes.
Have you ever thought to read up on the definitions? Here’s an easy one: A Conservative would not apply liberal sentencing rules…
Haltelcere
Libby Spencer, I was just thinking the same thing. How much Columbian coffee would the US have to buy to make that crop more attractive than cocaine? As Zifnab says,
Does anyone have an idea of the total effort that the US puts towards combating all drugs created from cocaine – the destroying of the crop, interfering with the transport, boarder security, prosecuting the dealers, and keeping people in prison? How much coffee could we buy and put into a land fill for those costs?
A couple things to consider though: How much Columbian farm land is not being used for either coffee or cocaine that would be converted to coffee production (more land used to grow coffee would then not impact the amount of land used to grow cocaine)?
And would the cocaine industry even be affected – would it remain at similar productions levels as today but only have a higher cost?
Michael D.
grumpy: Given the coverage of that here, and given that (I assume) most of you, like me, read Radley Balko, I thought that would go without saying.
LITBMueller: Ahmmmm, no. Since Prohibition ended, I haven’t seen too many people getting shot over a case of Bud – 1. Because they have legal access to it at a cheap price and, 2. Well, because Bud sucks, but that’s beside the point.
The reason people are shot over drugs is because there is SO much money in it BECAUSE they’re illegal.
I think it’s pretty simple economics, so I won’t take up any more space. Just think about it awhile.
Andrew
I think that this is the funniest Psycheout that I have ever seen.
libarbarian
Continuing the fun – and since many of my friends are from West Bengal –
ALL LEFTIES ARE GUILTY OF THIS CRIME!!!
Seriously though, it does remind me, yet again, of why I think Noam Chomsky really is a piece of shit.
Shorter Chomsky: “Ok. We understand that the government promised not to steal your land. We understand that having your land forcibly stolen from you, despite those promises, and handed over to a petro-chemical company is no fun. We also understand that it’s also no fun to be beaten, raped, and/or murdered by the police and pro-government vigilantes. However, in the interests of left-wing unity we really need you ignorant peasants to shut the fuck up and let yourselves be victimized by our ideological brethren. Thank you and please die quietly somewhere else, far away from me, you brave and noble scum.”
Thankfully some people see it for what it is:
myiq2xu
I never said “white.” Pardon me, but your bias is showing.
There isn’t a lot of money involved in the small scale production of meth. But manufacturing for sale requires quantities of ephedrine and other chemicals that cannot be obtained from normal retail sources.
1 oz of meth requires approximately 1000 60mg ephedrine/pseudephedrine pills. New laws limit the daily purchase of “E” to 48 pills per person, and restrict the sale of the other chemicals used in making meth.
To make a pound of meth, a person would need to buy 16000 pills, plus substantial quantities of some of the following: iodine, hydriotic acid, red phosphorus, anhydrous ammonia, coleman fuel, denatured alcohol, etc. (There are alternative methods using other chemicals but the problem remains.)
Here in central California we had labs manufacturing as much as 25-30 pounds a week. Nearly pure meth currently sells for about $1000-$1200 an ounce (less if you buy in large quantities, more if you buy less than a gram at a time) but was selling for half that price 3 years ago.
Even if you assume that the Mexican drug cartels are manufacturing most of the meth now, where do you think they get the raw materials? From US suppliers – “legit” businesses.
Chris
OK, now I’ve read through the comments, gotta remind the honorable people here:
You still haven’t refuted Michael’s argument that judges should be able to break the minimums, as they would know the cases better than Congress.
Otherwise, the conversation is generally correct… Crack is the one the “War on Drugs” is actually effective on. It’s too cheap and too socially destructive, and a serious penalty is necessary to help balance the scales.
All those near-future sci-fi flicks that include a super-drug in their plot are based on crack, and for good reason.
Michael D.
They’re all switching to meth, I’d imagine. I’m not sure that’s effective. I have no numbers to that effect – just a guess.
Ed Drone
[ douglasfactors Says:
uh_clem, do you really think the marijuana industry has a significant lobbying arm, much less one commensurate with its size?
And even if they did, what politician would risk getting near it?]
Actually, the pot industry has lots of congresscritters under its thumb. Their message is “keep the lid on, make the penalties high, keep it illegal,” and the congressers fall for it all the time. You don’t think all the people who were for prohibition were really against drinking, do you? It was good business to have a product that was desired by a lot of otherwise good people, with a selling price that was kept artificially high due to legally-provided scarcity.
There are lots of small-fry in the machine to grease the law-and-order gears, if it comes to needing “results” in terms of “catching the bad guys,” and the nature of the product does provide victims to point to when arguing to keep the whole shooting-match fueled up and running.
Ed
Alex
This decision is coincidentally timed with a news release from Human Rights Watch showing that the US has the highest incarceration rates in the world – seven times higher than Canada, five times higher than the UK, and more than three times higher than Iran. It’s pretty disgraceful.
Personally, I think that every time there is a social ill, there are two basic ways to attack it: (1) try to reduce the supply, or (2) try to reduce the demand. Supply-limiting solutions look like quick fixes and are politically popular, but they end up just encouraging skyrocketing prices and market monopolization by organized crime. Demand-limiting solutions are much harder to implement, but in the long run are more successful because they make it unprofitable for criminals to sell.
It’s not just the War on Drugs, but plenty of other things as well. Abortion, for example, is a pretty nasty procedure and no rational person, no matter how pro-choice, wants the numbers of abortions to increase. The supply-based solution of prosecuting doctors who perform abortions doesn’t work, it just drives women to back-alley unlicensed clinics. You need to end the demand for abortions by (1) providing comprehensive sex education and cheap or free birth control to teenagers and young adults and (2) ensuring that young mothers who do get pregnant have adequate social and monetary support to raise their kids if they so choose. (See the Netherlands, where teenage pregnancy and abortion rates are a fraction of what they are in the US.)
You can similarly compare supply vs. demand solutions for all sorts of social ills: Narcotics (total War on Drugs vs. treatment and education); broken families (hard-to-obtain divorces vs. adequate pre- and post-marital counseling and just waiting until maturity to marry); gun violence (gun bans vs. education & social services for the poor to keep them from turning to crime or gangs); and the list goes on.
Demand-limiting solutions are hard and expensive in the short run, but in the long run they work and end up less expensive than continuously expanding and ineffective supply-limiting solutions. It’s just Econ 101 – demand will always be met, but kill the demand and the supply will dry up on its own.
strait woman
Wars on nouns are almost by definition scams. This is a “war” we lost. It’s time to make peace, to legalize marijuana, to control the use of destructive drugs. I told this to one of our local judges and he agreed with me. Quietly. I guess we should start coming out of the woodwork.
Dreggas
The reality is organized crime is making a killing on meth, literally. Since it does not involve importing and can be made out of household products it is highly popular as a cash source for biker gangs and other more organized street gangs as well as groups like the Aryan Brotherhood and other white supremacist groups.
So cal has a major meth problem, who’s getting busted? Mostly street/biker gangs.
Fe E
Because we aren’t trying to refute–because we agree with the statement.
Are you saying it’s effective because the War on Drugs is making a bad situation worse (which would be correct) or do you think it’s effective because it mad crack no longer a problem? In which case, it isn’t.
Chris
That’s what I generally see as a pattern. Crack has high penalties and now has a crappy reputation… time to go somewhere else. Of course, I’m white and well-off, so don’t take me seriously.
I’m under the impression that meth is less destructive in the short term than crack, if not the long term. That is to say, meth will take a good couple months to get you strung out, where crack only needs a couple hits. I think that would help your suspicion, because meth addicts can stay under the radar a little longer. Again, White and rich, don’t take me seriously.
Dreggas
Oh an just wait, bush will put out a signing statement on the SCOTUS decision claiming that the decision will be ignored as it limits the ability of the unitary executive to properly punish brown people.
Fe E
Chris, was that aimed at me, or have I just missed a few posts?
I don’t like to get into arguments about which drug is worse than what, because so much of that arises from purely social concerns, and not pharmacologic ones. If I had to make some kind of judgement call on those ground pot is pretty much the only one in a category by itself because of its lack of physical withdrawal symptoms. But making arbitray value judgemetns on whose self-destructive hobbies are worse is what got us here in the first place.
I merely advocate for treating drug abuse as the public health concern it is–trying to prosecute out way out of this jam isn’t working.
Chris
Nope, and nope. I missed a few posts. Or some simulposts.
Damn you! I’m lurking for a fight! Put those kneepads on you and get in that lettuce-filled inflatable pool!
The former. Sort of. I think if you limit the field of observation, you’d find that the crack issue has been made better, but when you zoom out, you see the scarring elsewhere (pot-smoking granny in jail).
The question, to my systems-designer eyes, is “does this provide better leverage to work on other social ills, now that the crack isn’t weighting us down (profit), does this just move the problem to granny (break-even), or are we over-filling jails with people who aren’t jail-worthy (failure)
laneman
What Michael said was on spot.
The law needs to get a grip. If you are not causing harm to others with your drug use, go for it.
The law as is presently enacted prevents one of the most renewable resources that have innumerable uses from being grown – hemp.
Twas a major source of income for many of the founding fathers. You can’t smoke (ok, you could smoke it, but…) a zero TCH herb to get any effect.
The policy in this country is out of control.
Period
Chris
Oh, and just to answer, I’m guessing “break-even”, because that’s usually the best the federal gov’t can do.
I’m a big advocate of more nuanced programs, but changes of that are Fucking-Zero ™ because half of this country can’t even name their House rep (or some absurd stat like that).
So, for now, I’m an educated person forced to Think Stupid ™.
now I gotta go fill out those trademark applications.
J sub D
Drug warriors are just religious nutjobs that want to control every aspect of your life. You like that definition, moron?
BTW, the drug war is over. Drugs won. You are delusional if you think otherwise.
Tony Alva
As perhaps the only individual who reads this blog to actually have used both powder and crack coke, let me be the first to tell you all: There is a HUGE diff between them. Smoking coke, basing, crack, etc… is a totally different high. The most overwhelming effect differential being the almost instant and uncontrollable desire to get more. It is intense and short lived, but the memory of where it took you cannot be waved off easily. It consumes every thought subsequent. Oh yeah and BTW, this happens the FIRST time you use it.
With the powder variety, the buzz is a longer less intense experience. While to the casual user there is a prodding need to do/get more, it isn’t something that can’t be whisked away with another drink and/or involved conversation.
When you smoke coke, the desire to do more happens so quick and is so overwhelming that it is easy to see why MD’s made the claim that you can become addicted the first time using it. Anybody you might know who has used them both would tell you the same. Those don’t are probably still using.
I am not proud to have toyed with any of this stuff and am glad I found the smarts to get out while I still young and had the power to do it myself. MANY of my friends didn’t. The only good thing about getting old has been putting 25 years worth of distance between now and that time for me.
Having said that and within the context of the crack epidemic timeframe (mid 80’s), the sentencing guidelines were proportional and just for dealers of any color, but the big problem was dealing with the fact that a huge population of users themselves became so driven for more they were capable of committing violent crimes to get their fix. You “legalize it all” folks haven’t got a fucking clue. Violent crime and smoking coke were/are inseparable. Had that been the option law enforcement rolled out countless THOUSANDS MORE would have been killed, users and civilians alike.
Is it less of a crime if someone of color is committing it? Unfortunately, African-Americans are weighted heavy in other crime stat buckets too. It has nothing to do with fucking anything other than the black community has/had a bigger population of users. Get all twisted about it if you want, but it is what it is. Fair? Nothing’s fair.
Do I think crack/coke users of any color should be locked up for long stretches? Only if said long stretch is in a locked down rehab center. It takes two years of sobriety to wean an addict off and have any chance of making it stick. There is no way around it. If they’ve committed a violent crime? I’m sorry, but you’ve got to do the time. Dealers? They should all be thrown down a dark hole for an eternity. They are the most souless people you’ll ever meet.
Zifnab
Ok, that’s just conspiracy theory nonsense. Who was making more money in the liquor business than Al Capone? Last I checked, he still died in jail. The CEO of RJ Reynolds doesn’t have to worry about getting life for hawking Marboros. No sane businessman would work to keep his billion dollar blockbuster product illegal.
And yes, people who supported prohibition were in fact against alcohol. The prohibition movement grew largely out of churches and other civic organizations for much the same reason that the Drug War started – as an attempted War on Poverty designed to socially engineer a better society. It was a very Utopian world view that had rather unpleasant results.
But if I remember my statistics correctly, 1 in 4 criminals in the US system are in for drug related offenses. That’s a bunch of people, and the privatization of the prison system means that the real people pushing to keep drug laws on the books are attorneys, cop unions, and prison firms that all reap money from the criminal justice system.
Punchy
That seals it. I’m moving back to crack. Where’s my lighter?
Libby Spencer
Col. S, we already do that. It’s easier to get drugs inside the prison than it is on the street. No addict comes out of the system cured because of lack of availability. Also folks, crack is not instantly addictive, it’s just cheap so people can do more of it. Meth is not an epidemic, nor is it a new drug. Meth was popular in the 60s, but it was a purer form so its manufacture was less toxic. What happened then is they made the original percusor ingredients illegal and so people figured out how to create those in order to make the meth. That process is really dangerous, but it did nothing to stop the use.
The latest crackdown did shut down the mom and pop operations but the Mexican cartels have taken over the business. They aren’t actually getting the precusors from the US anymore. I believe that’s been shut down but they are getting them from other countries. People are still able to get meth, but non-users now need a security clearance to get freaking cold medicine that no longer even works well because they forced them to reformulate. It’s not going to stop anybody who wants to get cranked from doing it though.
People will do drugs. Have been since the beginning of time and nothing will stop it. Nor should it be stopped as long as they are being used responsibly. People who abuse drugs, need treatment, not punishment. Just as we don’t prohibit booze because of alcoholics, neither should we continue to make these 7 or 8 drugs that are currently illegal the object of a ‘war’ because a fraction of the users abuse them.
They’re pouring a minimum of 40 billion tax dollars a year into this failed strategy. For a fraction of that you could treat all the addicts and put the rest of the money into programs that would address the root causes of drug abuse in the first place.
Richard Bottoms
Want to mitigate the problem? Treatment on demand, as many times as it takes for it to stick.
See: Robert Downey Jr. aka Iron Man
Gus
LTB Mueller, there are numerous ways you showed ignorance in your rant, but the funniest one is calling “skunked” weed crappy. Skunk weed is invariably the good stuff. Michael made the argument already, but, while there is still liquor bootlegging, there isn’t a lot of crime involved in it. The one reason to legalize everything is that prohibition doesn’t fucking work. It’s that simple. That doesn’t mean that there needs to be a heroin store the same way there is a liquor store. The UK is having success with a program in which junkies are able to procure heroin in a clinical setting. They shoot up with medical professionals in attendance. They get medical care if needed, they’re encouraged to get on methadone and it’s much easier to prod them into treatment. If all junkies were able to get into such programs there would be no profit to be made on the black market, the junkies wouldn’t need to commit crimes to get a fix, fewer would die from OD or AIDS. We should focus on harm reduction, not punishment.
Jake
That’s funny. When I was in Indiana and meth was becoming a problem everyone was screaming OMG IT’S WORSE THAN CRACK.
The general rule of thumb on the publicly stated addictiveness of drugs is this:
As a drug moves up the most wanted list in the WoD, the amount of times it takes to get hooked decreases. When I were a little lad “everyone knew,” one hit of heroin would turn you into a raving, car stealing, father stabbing, mother raping smack addict. Real research suggests that one hit of heroin will make you puke your feet out. As will the second and possibly third.
As for which is worse for you short and long term, I wouldn’t try to chose between freebasing and meth snorting. Both are very, very bad for you and once the user passes the addiction threshold, both are very hard to quit.
I will say this though: I’ve never gone for a hike and seen signs warning me that I might stumble onto a crack lab or meet heavily armed, highly agitated crack cookers.
laneman
While I agree with Zif’s conspiracy theory on the anti-marijuana group, there is the thought that Hearst had a connection is not completely unfounded.
Clicky for potential whack job site
Gus
Tony Alva, you’re not the only one to have used both. I tried crack once, and while I could see the addictive potential being greater, I didn’t find it instantly addictive. At the same time, I was damn sure to stay away from it after that one time. Maybe the stuff I tried was stomped on more. Same with meth. Tried it once, could see the allure, but not instantly addictive.
J sub D
Tony Alva, you’re not the only one.
When it comes to abuse, crack isn’t a bigger deal than meth, alcohol, opiates and some of the other mind altering substances out there. Your reference to crack users viv a vis violent crime is laughable. Think alcohol and domestic violence for a moment. Congrats on getting clean without assistance. You’re in the company of mere millions who have stopped using one drug or another without state intervention.
Would you, or society, be better off if you had been arrested, prosecuted and sentenced due to your use as a youth?
Libby Spencer
Tony, that’s not the drug, that’s your own predisposition to addiction. I’ll put my former drug use against yours any day of the week. I’ve known many people who tried it and didn’t like it and never did it again, and I’ve known some that became addicted. I could say the same for powder coke, heroin and meth. The dabblers moved on, some users continued to consume the drugs occassionally and a lot of the addicts died because they didn’t get the treatment they needed.
Fe E
For the record Tony, I’m not proud of it, but I HAVE smoked a rock or two. It was back when I was in the oilfield, I loaned a guy a hundred bucks so we could go out partying; little did I know he planned on taking all that cash and buying crack.
I figured since I paid for it (and could tell immediately I was never gettin’ that maney back) I might as well try it. After all, I had done a little flake in college, and the drug war propaganda was wrong about that, so they were probably wrong about crack as well.
In my experience, the hype was a bit overblown. It was indeed one hell of a rush–I liken it to the ulimate jitter free coffee buzz–but I had no overwhleming deisre to go get more.
I think addiction thresholds vary quite a lot so drawing conclusions from personal anecdotes is difficult.
Chris
Which perfectly explains how the nutcases performed the miracle of making pot somehow addictive.
My kid’s friend smokes pot?? This couldn’t possibly be true… I’ve said “hello” to this friend once! Ooooh, that insidious drug!
Fe E
Libby:
What you said.
orogeny
Zifnab,
Here in Alabama, every time there is an election to try to make one of the dry counties or cities wet the Baptists and bootleggers form an alliance to keep those areas dry. Keeping alcohol illegal generates big bucks for both groups. Sure, the prez of RJ Reynolds isn’t going to try to have cigarettes made illegal because he’s already got a revenue stream from legal cigarettes. But, the large-scale bootlegger/drug dealer, whose revenue stream depends on his product remaining illegal will happily support politicians who are in favor of continuing the drug war.
Here in Alabama, marijuana is the number-one cash crop. Do you really think that a substantial percentage of that money doesn’t flow into the campaign coffers of the anti-drug pols who make that crop worth what it is?
Chris
OK, I can accept that this is a den of horrible, thieving, murdering, stereotypically evil drug users.
I cannot accept that Psycheout isn’t one of you. I demand he testify.
Zifnab
*Scratches head* Really? I mean, really? That just seems so… dumb.
laneman
I would add a book to read while discussing addiction. Augusten Burroughs sounds rational, he was a raging alcoholic and tried other drugs. A tad too much AA in there for me, but he is honest.
No, it is not a self-help or even a help book.
orogeny
Why? Just an example. If marijuana were made legal, the price would drop precipitously. The good old boys who can make a couple of hundred $K a year growing pot in little patches all over the family farm would be out of business. They’re not businessmen…they don’t want to set up a farming operation that would make them an honest living. They want to be able to plant a crop that requires little or no maintenance and then make a whole bunch of money at harvest time. Otherwise, they’d be growing soybeans instead.
Chris
FTFY, Zifnab.
Illegal does not mean poorer business. Just means one more hurdle that you might not be able to jump.
If illegality were a 100% impenetrable barrier, your logic would be intact.
Chris
Lets try that again:
That’s what I get for using old-school html. I’m a loser.
Jen
This is more or less conventional wisdom on drug sentencing, isn’t it? I seem to remember even Bush talking about equalizing the sentencing, eons ago, and of course the current Supreme Court is not exactly Woodstock reincarnated. It’s just common sense. Time for a new thread, says I.
Chris
Entirely correct, but then the following question is, why don’t the super-agricultures, who are suited to farm this for a profit, pressing to make it legal so they can make money right-away from it?
Answer: Because it’s a far less profitable crop.
Why? No subsidies. The Gov’t will be happy to subsidize food. They might legalize a mild intoxicant. They will never subsidize it.
And by “never”, I mean not until 50 years down the line when there’s a generation of pot farmers in a bear market with stunningly low self-esteem that believe they can’t compete in a fair job market. That’s “never” in the money-now corporate timeline.
Jake
As the great man-child himself would say: LOL!
Darkness
So, why WAS hemp made illegal? It really defies reason. The only thing I can think of is it made it too easy to hide marijuana growing… but was that the stated reason, or was the legislature just horribly confused as usual and believe it also was a drug?
A War on Left Flanking Maneuvers has about as much a chance of success as a War on Things That Grow Wild in My Yard Because I Am Not Fond of Weedkiller. And while I don’t smoke any of them, I don’t feel like I can morally claim others shouldn’t. I, fortunately/unfortunately, have an easy time disassociating from reality without chemical assistance. But, when the poppy-patch is blooming, it gets a little weird around the house. They grow right along the road, a fully-legal 30 foot-square area of them, all orange and papery. Imagine if that were weed what the legal reaction would be… Makes no sense, any of it.
J sub D
Thanks for the notice. I like his stuff. He definitely marches to a different beat than most of us.
Kynn
I think you’re kind of naive, Michael, to dismiss racism as a motive and just think of it as an unintentional side effect.
Dreggas
sorry but just have to post this:
gex
“The War on Drugs has kept our unemployment rate low. Without it, we’d have another 2 million people out on the streets searching for work and an unemployment rate of over 10%.”
That’s not even counting all those “exciting jobs in the criminal justice system” for which the late night ads are offering training.
laneman
So, why WAS hemp made illegal? asked by darkness.
only the idea that it was eating into the Hearst timber industry and there are the drug moralists.
Dennis - SGMM
If you’d been at at war for 93 years and you’d lost every battle wouldn’t you reassess what you were fighting and how you were fighting it?
The Harrison Narcotic Drug Act was passed in 1914. In seven more years the War on Drugs will be 100 years old. A cynic might suspect that the war itself is more lucrative and important than doing anything rational about personal drug use.
chopper
except in the case of booze and cigarettes, but for some reason those don’t count.
as to lobbying, i have no doubts at all that at least one of the many, many anti-grass lobbying groups out there is actually a front for some more organized growers. i dunno, i can imagine hard core big-time dealers putting cash into making sure congress kept it illegal. it just makes sense.
i mean, it’s not like they’d be calling up congressmen saying ‘hi, i’m with marijuana dealers against low marijuana profits and i just wanted a second of your…hello? hello?’
J sub D
The War on (________).
a) Drugs
b) Sanity
c) Freedom
d) Minorities
e) Human nature
Remember to select the “most correct” answer.
Haltelcere
I don’t have any facts on why hemp was made illegal. But, for those who are contemplating the potential resurgence of hemp as a legitimate crop, consider this:
It looks like traditional uses of hemp have been replaced with superior or cheaper modern alternatives. Now, if hemp could be used to solve an emerging problem (ethanol?) or a cheaper substitute becomes more expensive (wood pulp for paper) then hemp would return as a viable product.
Tony Alva
It’s the million dollar question here. For a couple of those I ran with, getting caught and sentenced to time did nothing, but a guy I still keep in touch with sat for 11 mos. 29 days and it was all he needed. He enrolled in college when he got out and never looked back.
Coke use will inevidable move you to commit crime. Crack makes that all that much quicker. There is the desire to help the addict and there is protecting innocent citizens from said crime. IMHO, the citizen wins the tie breaker.
Haltelcere
A follow up on my previous post.
Cannabis becoming widely acceptable for legitimate medical use would also help return the plant as a viable agriculture product.
Libby Spencer
Nah. If he was one of us we would have named him Psyche-in.
Haltelcere, that link is to a paper from 1998. The market and the resultant economies of production have significantly changed since then. Many countries, including Canada are growing and increasing their cultivated acreage and new uses are being invented all the time. Google “uses of hemp.” Farmers are begging to grow it and there’s a case in the courts right now, some politically connected farmer, I think in Wisconsin is trying to get a license to grow it and I’m aware of a failed attempt a while back to get licensed in western Massachusetts. That was a small farm that couldn’t afford the appeal process. The DEA is blocking all attempts to accredit it as an legit agricultural crop.
By the way, no cannabis grower in his right mind would use hemp to screen their crop. The cross pollination would ruin the THC value of the psychotropic species.
J sub D
But Tony, I asked about you.
Prohibition will inevitably lead many to commit crime. We demonstrated that in the early part of the 20th century. If a refresher course is needed, I nominate the South LA school of prohibition economics. We’ve never demonstrated that legal cocaine would lead to an increase of crime.
Libby Spencer
Tony that’s ridiculous. I have known many, and by that I mean a whole lot of cocaine consumers, who held down jobs and only used on weekends and never committed a crime to ‘get a fix.’ Addiction might cause someone to commit petty crimes for drug money, but simple responsible consumption will not. Which is all the more reason to give the addicts the drug. Then they won’t have to steal to get it. You solve the addict’s problem and protect the public. Where’s the down side?
LITBMueller
There is a huge difference between what you can get on the street after you cut and cook an ounce of cocaine into crack.
You actually think that Bud can be compared to crack cocaine or meth? Alcohol requires distilleries, bottling, distribution, etc. All a crack dealer needs to set up shop is some cocaine, some baking soda, pots and pans, and some baggies. The economics are completely different.
No, people shoot each other over drugs not just because of the money, but because they have nothing else – no jobs, etc. Crack dealers often refer to what they do as their “business” and the crack as their “product.” Let’s suppose all drugs are legalized, and the price went way down? What do you think a person who has known no life except being an inner city drug dealer is going to do? Suddenly say, “Aw, shucks, guess I gotta go get a job now!”
Hell no. There will still be money to be made in drugs simply because it is such a high profit enterprise with very very very low costs (as compared to your bottle of Bud, Michael). Say you legalize marijuana: well, then, skunked weed becomes the new market. Say you legalize it all here but Canada doesn’t: well, then, “exporting” it to Canada becomes the rage.
Another example: MS-13 operates by a territorial system, i.e., they force the drug dealers within their territory to give them a cut – if they don’t, they get shot. If all drugs are legalized, then MS-13’s business will just be modified. They will work to expand their territory to maximize profits from whatever black market might exist, they will require the legal dealers within their territory to still give them a cut or get shot, and they will work on exporting legal US drugs to other countries south of the border.
That’s right, and, people get pretty pissed off when they are promised a dime bag of some good skunked weed. But, when they smoke it and find it isn’t all it was cracked up to be, they often go back to confront the dealer. Fill in the blanks. Additionally, Gus, its the not the addicts I’m concerned with, its the dealers. And, more often than not, dealers don’t use their own product. They just feed on the addicts.
uh_clem
“Front” may be too strong of a term. “Uncritically accepts donations from anyone, whomever they may be” is probably closer to the truth.
How much of the funding comes from people who have a financial interest in keeping it illegal? I have no idea, but there’s a lot of money involved and an easy conduit to putting some of it to use to affect public policy. I think it would violate some law of nature if the money didn’t flow from the industry to the anti-drug orgs. Whether that’s most or even a substantial portion of their support is an open question, but my hunch is that it is.
bob
LITB watches WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY too much tv
Chris
Gotta poke you on that one: Moonshiners. Alcoholism.
Is there a difference between the results of hits of the drug itself? Yeah. Is there a difference between the post-hit physiological effects? Yeah. You have that going for you.
But are the foundations of the illegal economy the same? Yeah.
Gus
LTB Mueller, how do you think they make cocaine out of coca leaves? It’s a helluva lot more complex chemical process than brewing beer or distilling whiskey. And do you really think potheads are shooting it out over getting ripped off with shitty weed? If drugs are legalized, gangs will undoubtedly move into other areas of crime, much like bootlegging syndicates did after prohibition. However, the easy profits available because of drug prohibition will be gone. I would never suggest that ending prohibition is going to be a panacea. It’s just a better solution than prohibition.
Libby Spencer
Okay, this is my last word on this thread. I’ve got to get something done today but this study just popped up in my inbox. It’s on the effects of drug abuse in aging boomers and while on the whole there are some negative effects, this one item is somewhat amusing in light of the discussion here.
For example, age-related decreases in methylphenidate-induced extracellular dopamine release may reflect reductions in DAT binding that are part of normal brain aging (Volkow et al, 2001). Interestingly, Wang et al (1997) reported that chronic cocaine abusers in their study did not exhibit age-related reductions in DAT. Although potential confounding factors remain to be examined, this finding suggests that cocaine abuse may interfere with at least some changes in neurotransmitter activity that appear to be a normal feature of aging (Wang et al, 1997).
In other words, cocaine abuse is good for your DAT binding capacity.
I’m also reminded of a story that Gary Webb told me the last time I saw him, may he rest in peace, on a study done in California on impaired driving. The study found that cocaine users were the best drivers.
Tony Alva
If you’ve got friends who are “only using on the weekends” I’ll offer you this advice: Don’t lend them any money you ever expect to get back and/or leave them in a room alone with any valuables in sight. If they aren’t like that now, they will be in due time my firend. Trust me, NOBODY is immune my friend.
Responsible cocaine consumption, that statement would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad…
Larv
Wha? Especially given the amount of discussion of home-brewing here, I find it difficult to believe that you can say this with a straight face.
Does the mafia still sell black-market booze?
Um, what is this “skunked weed” and how is it different from marijuana?
Yawn. So how many liquor stores do you think kick back a portion of their profits to the mafia, LITB?
Too funny.
ThymeZone
I totally agree with your post.
J sub D
Ah yes, the reformed addict. Like catholic converts, ex-smokers, and married whores, righteous as can be.
laneman
Uhm, no. Many of us brew our own beer, distill our beer, or fruit , and really don’t need a hard-core manufacturing plant to do it.
Actually the law EXPLICITLY permits people to brew and distill. It came after the dissolution of prohibition.
LITBMueller
Larv:
1) Can a homebrewer use a kit to make bottles of beer in his basement, and then sell one bottle on the street for $100 a bottle? No. But a crack dealer can expect to pull in $100-140 for every gram of crack he sells. And only about 40% of that gram is actually cocaine – the rest is the filler used to cook it. Seems to be a WAYYYY more profitable “business” than trying to brew beer or moonshine in yer basement.
That’s why the two “economies” simply cannot be compared at all.
2) No, the mafia got out of booze…and into narcotics – more money to be made.
3) If you don’t know what skunked weed is in the first place, then you really outta reconsider your position on the legalization of narcotics. There are lots of different types/strains of marijuana – some are considered better than others, and can be sold for more money. Plus, marijuana can be dipped in other substances, like PCP, for an even “better” high. So…which one gets legalized?
4) Asked the guys killed in this case if this is funny:
This is the kind of crap I’m talking about: if drugs are legalized here, the problem will not go away – the market simply changes.
Gus: you’re still confused – I’m talking about street level dealers of crack, not the cocaine producers.
The Other Steve
The last time this nation suffered a drug problem(late 19th century with morphine and opium), the solution was education.
Larv
LITB,
Hmm, you don’t think that has anything to do with the legal status of the two markets, do you? Nah, that’s unpossible! You don’t seem to be grappling with the fact that the profitability of drugs is a product of the black market.
Yes, because narcotics were still illegal, and thus still profitable, whereas alcohol was not.
LITB, I’m quite familiar with “skunk” weed (not “skunked”, that’s what happens to beer when exposed to light). I was asking if you were, as you earlier said: Say you legalize marijuana: well, then, skunked weed becomes the new market. This doesn’t make any sense; skunk weed is just a type of marijuana, not a different product entirely.
So you think that if marijuana were legalized, large organized crime syndicates would still be growing it in suburban houses and keeping thousands of dollars in cash around also? Really?
Gus
LTB Mueller, all the things you’re talking about are the result of the illegality of drugs. The mafia moved into narcotics from booze because legitimate business could sell at low prices. Prices are high because there is a legal risk associated with selling drugs. Products get adulterated because there is no government control. You’re making pro-legalization arguments without realizing it.
LITBMueller
No, Larv: organized crime syndicates would now grow copious amounts of mnarijuana here, legally, so they can smuggle it into places where it is not legal. Sorta like rum-running in reverse.
Or, did you just not read the “B.C. Bud” article I linked to, where, in British Columbia, the cannabis laws go unenforced, and the result has been a black market that is spawning violence.
And, tell me, what the effect of legalization be on crack – a drug that is already very low in price per gram? Even at $50/g or $20/g, it would still be profitable enough that there would be plenty of people that would rather sell it than go get a minimum wage job, dontcha think?
grumpy realist
I guess I’m enough of a libertarian that my attitude is somewhat along the lines of “legalize everything and let God sort it out.”
I do wonder what would happen if we had the following system:
1. legalize anything you can grow in your back yard. This should cover pot and opium. Doesn’t coca need a particular climate? (and if you want to chew coca leaves, fine with me.) Medical marihuana, definitely OK.
2. Control the purified stuff. You can register to be a Legal Addict and get cheap drugs to ingest under supervision. Offer programs to get off the stuff, but hey, if you want to drug yourself to death, we’re not going to stop you.
I wonder how many addicts, if given access to as much crack/meth/whatever they wanted, actually survive for that long? In otherwords, is it a self-destructive spiral, or can one reach some form of equilibrium?
Larv
I’m puzzled as to why we should care. Are you in favor of making alcohol illegal because otherwise businesses might make it here and then smuggle it into Muslim countries where it’s illegal?
The profitability of the marijuana black market is the result of U.S. laws which make a legal, functioning market impossible, not Canadian laws which are insufficiently harsh to growers. Even here in the US marijuana is still one of, if not the, top cash crops. Why? Because of our lack of draconian drug laws? No, because it’s profitable. Why is it profitable? Because it’s a black market, and is thus free of taxes, onerous regulation, excessive competition, etc. An ideal situation for a criminal organization, but I see no reason why someone who isn’t part of one should favor it.
How many people do you see selling alcohol on street corners? It’s cheap, why not? The issue isn’t whether plenty of people would want to sell drugs, it’s why anyone would buy from them if they could get it at the corner store. You claim to hate drug dealers, but the drug dealer is entirely a product of the Drug War. Many drugs weren’t always illegal in this country, and back when the were legal they were sold by pharmacists, not crime syndicates and pushers.
John S.
Pretty much. The simple fact is that marijuana is the only heavily used narcotic that comes right out of the ground without any man-made interference (which is probably one reason the government hates it). Oh, and of course hallucinogenic mushrooms. Can’t forget about those.
You’re not going to see a spate of people gnawing on coca leaves (though it is popular in South America) or people chowing down on raw poppies. Cocaine and heroin are plant derived narcotics, and they come a long way from the ground to consumption.
Anthing else like LSD, ecstasy, crystal meth – it is all purely synthetic and manufactured in a lab somewhere. Ban all that shit from public consumption like you would any other hazardous chemical. But the stuff that comes straight from the ground and goes into consumption without any human interference aside from drying? Leave it alone.
Amsterdam pretty much has the right take on things, and guess what? Their drug-related crime rate (and even regular crime rate) and narcotic consumption is far lower than ours. And speaking from experience, it is a charming city that is very clean and friendly (just stay out of the skeezy red light district).
John S.
We have a winner!
If people could buy a pack of 20 class A marijuana cigarettes from the gas station at the cost of $20-$40 dollars, there is no way dealers could compete. That same amount of marijuana right now would cost more like $100-$200 on the black market.
Added bonus: The money would mostly go to the government, not a drug dealer.
Gilmore
Plus, marijuana can be dipped in other substances, like PCP, for an even “better” high.
I LOVE it when people trot out this myth. You’re getting all this information from 21 Jump Street, aren’t you?
Think about it for three seconds.
– PCP costs MORE than weed.
– Dope smokers generally would not consider a wacked-out angel dust trip to be “better”.
– People who smoke pot and can’t deal with it need an out to avoid looking like a pussy. Hence, “it was laced!”
lownslow
Here’s another take one of the fundamental assumptions of the “war on drugs”: the disease model of drug addiction. For some reason, back in the 80’s, this research didn’t get a welcoming reception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/alexender-e.htm
”
Rat Park was a study into drug addiction conducted in the 1970s by Canadian psychologist Bruce K. Alexander at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada.
Alexander’s hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to morphine commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself. [1] He told the Canadian Senate in 2001 that experiments in which laboratory rats are kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to self-injection apparatus, show only that “severely distressed animals, like severely distressed people, will relieve their distress pharmacologically if they can.” [2]
To test his hypothesis, Alexander built Rat Park, a 200-square-foot (18.6 m²) housing colony, 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage. There were 16–20 rats of both sexes in residence, an abundance of food, balls and wheels for play, and private places for mating and giving birth. [3] The results of the experiment appeared to support his hypothesis. Rats who had been forced to consume morphine hydrochloride for 57 consecutive days were brought to Rat Park and given a choice between plain tap water and water laced with morphine. For the most part, they chose the plain water. “Nothing that we tried,” Alexander wrote, “… produced anything that looked like addiction in rats that were housed in a reasonably normal environment.” [1]
KAren Andrews
If anyone is interested, there is an amazing (and tragic) article in the current Rolling Stone magazine about the farcical War on Drugs. Every American should read it and then get mad.
Best,
KSMIAMI
ps.: They also have a decent article on Led Zeppelin
Gus
John S., what do you have against LSD?
John S.
Well, speaking as someone who did way more than his fair share in his youth (I think I can be classified as legally insane many times over), my major gripe is that it is an unpredictable and unnatural chemical that yields strange results.
Most acid that is circulated is cooked up by some chemistry student somewhere. Formulas and results vary greatly, and the results can range somewhere from mild euphoria to full blown visual and auditory hallucinations (in my experience). Because of its unpredictable nature, it can affect people in very different ways – sometimes positive, sometimes terribly negative.
In my view, I don’t think a drug like that belongs in circulation. In fact, I am against all chemical and artificial substances. If you are really keen on having a vision quest, eat some psilocybin mushrooms or round up some peyote-derived mescaline. If it isn’t naturally ocurring, leave it the fuck alone (and even then, mind your step).
myiq2xu
Ever seen liquor store owners shooting each other over “territory?” How many store owners trade stolen property for cigarettes?
Much (but by no means all) of the harm caused by illegal drugs is due to their prohibition. Among those harms:
1) Getting arrested for possession.
2) Getting fired for failing a drug test (even though the drugs were not used at work and did not affect job performance.)
3) Accidental overdose due to variations in purity.
4) Physical harm due to contamination, cutting agents or impurities left over from manufacturing.
5) Getting killed or injured by criminals fighting over drug profits.
Alcohol and tobacco are both highly addictive and very harmful, but we live with the harm they cause because they are socially acceptable and legal. We restrict and tax them, and punish their misuse (sales to minors, driving under the influence, etc.)
There are many other activities that are dangerous but legal, such as sky-diving, base jumping, bull-riding, motocross racing and sex, so all the arguments in favor of prohibition based on the premise that we need to protect people from themselves are bullshit. The last canard is that we need to prohibit all drug use in order to protect the children. Kids can’t legally drink, smoke, or have sex either.
Tony Alva
No, dickcheese just some down to earth reality check. We all started “using on the weekends”. One of the big motivations for me to leave it behind was watching friends sneak into my recording studio, take gear that belonged to me or someone else, and sell it at the local music store. Three hours later they’d be back for a session and have an eight ball in their pocket acting all surprised at the missing gear.
In all my years I’ve never met anybody who went out and stole something to get a dime bag of weed, but when it comes to coke, as I’ve said, it’s inevitable.
Gary Williams
Mueller, About halfway through your posts I had a brief flash that maybe this was a tongue-in-cheek depiction of a 1950’s conservative. But then I realized that here was someone who actually thinks the he’s informed on the subject due his exposure to a DARE pamphlet and a crack addict. You are mistaken. Very mistaken…..
First, you must learn to distinguish between the effects of being addicted to a drug that is only available on a black market in contrast to that same drug when made available cheaply by prescription. Ask yourself why that drug…when used in a clean and supervised setting like Insite can have over 500 ODs without 1 death. Why a gallon of morphine can go out to patients in syringes at the hospital up the street every month without the evil poppy causing even one OD, one case of AIDS, one robbery of the nurse because she took too long answering the damn buzzer.
Tell me. How can such drastically different results occur when the same amount of the same drug is used in the regulated, legal setting of a hospital, vs the destruction of lives going on in the back alley behind that hospital. Same drug. Ones regulated, the other isn’t.
I’ll be blunt. You and people like you are responsible for all the deaths that happen over and above what would be expected were the drugs prescribed to them at a reasonable cost. Last I heard, heroin cost about ten bucks a gram to manufacture. YOUR black market demands around 300 for that same product. Why? Because they can. YOU make it possible for them to ask a price that is always /just/ makeable should a girl be willing to sell her body each day or a man steal a few items that wont draw heat down on them all like a larger amount of money would demand. Free market capitalism without any regulators at all..the capitalist dream at work and your responsible! Proud? They thank you. Not the teen hookers you created I mean, but the dealers who profit and the police who keep their jobs with a bloated LEO bureacracy that is as completely addicted to drug prohibition as that hooker who just died while I was writing this at the hands of another killer somewhere who preys on those who you push into back alleys. The police thank you…for their jobs…for believing them on their word alone, for disregarding all the reams of evidence showing how damaging the lifestyle forced on them by your policy….the severe, crppling damage that simply being /prosecuted for drugs/ WILL DEFINITELY inflict on a person, but on the slight chance pot /might/ cause staistically insignificant (4 per 100,000 might be 7 per!!!) psychotic manifestaions, it’s worth it, huh!
Remember how the Meth Monster was going to decimate society afew years ago despite the drugs appearence in a far more potent form years earlier without so much as a hint that Armegeddon was around the corner?
Remember how the police fed the media lurid headlines about “crack babies” being born with terrible mutations or psychological impairments not seen since the thalidomide tragedy? I’ll bet you never stopped to wonder how these babies could already be having trouble in school when crack had only hit the streets a couple years prior, hmmm?
The drug-crazed hippy image has long been the Horn Of Plenty for LEO’s since Nixon put Anslingers insanity into actions as social policy, much the way Bush put the neocons Pax Americana into play despite neither party knowing nothing of the result should they be successful in twisting the Presidents ear. Neoconservatives made war having no personal experience or knowledge of what they were doing, and conservatives make war on sick people at home. Both tirelessly resist all efforts by smarter people than them who want to fix things by changing a law that conservatives have long used as a central fixture upon which they define poverty, whine about tax hikes, or need to point to an enemy to justifying their paranoiac “us vs them” approach to civilized society.
And speaking of civilized society, it was Mexicans and black musicians byband large who used the Weed. And so, just as you used opium laws to harass and deport the Chinese who had come over during the gold-rush years, marijuana was used to pin a label on both the black musicians who were getting uppity with a rise in the popularity of that horrible “jazz” sound that seemed overly fond of using the saxaphone, an instrument that drew spittle on the lips of preachers across the US that apparently made their tirades against rock’nroll look like it came from a Christian hymnal by comparison.
Yup. It was conservative hatred for different races, religions, social habits, langueages… and obviously choice in intoxicants, that was responsible for the prohibition back then as they are behind it’s continuance today.
Miserable little people who cast around for someone less powerful than themselves so they can get away with blaming and abusing others for the sorry state of their own little lives.
Anne Laurie
One thing I’m surprised nobody seems to have mentioned yet in this POLITICAL blog: Something like 30 states prohibit felons, even those who’ve “paid their debt to society”, from voting. As we know, upper-crust Texas Air National Guard pilots who snort powdered cocaine (and, okay, Rhodes Scholars who fail to inhale) don’t get sent to prison. But troublemakers from the wrong side of the expressway? Lock those smoke-sucking fiends up, and thereby guarantee that they’ll never be able to contribute their mite to the election of The Wrong Sort. Everybody knows that People Like That are only going to vote for Demon-crats, or worse yet, Ron Paul!
Seriously… at the presidential level, it’s only occasionally important that (say) twice as many African-American and/or poverty-level potential voters as White suburban voters are legally barred from participating. But at the school-board-and-weights-assessor level, especially in smaller communities, giving the local Powers That Be a set of draconian “drug laws” to help them ensure that uppity poor people don’t get a voice in what’s taught to their kids or where the new toxic-waste landfill gets sited — that’s not just wrong, it’s un-American.
LITBMueller
Wow, Gary Williams. Serously: blow me – you don’t know who I am or what I do. I can’t talk about my work here on a public blog, but I will say this: I deal every fucking day with drug dealers, drug addicts, and the victims of crime, lack of opportunity, and hopelessness in Philadelphia. And, until those problems are dealt with, then this “legalization” crap is nothing but a wet dream from some suburbanite who is pissed off that his 19 yr. old cousin got probation for possession of a dime bag, as far as I’m concerned.
There are so many problems, so many questions, so many intricacies that would need to be addressed before any sort of legalization policy could be implemented, that it would take a lifetime to write the legislation. And all you libertarians should realize: the government would fuck it up, anyway, whether through high taxation, strict rules concerning importation, or rules regarding the minimum age someone has to be to buy certain types of drugs.
So, keep on smokin’ yer pipe dream.
John S.
If you are too fucking retarded to realize that someone doesn’t need to have their “19 yr. old cousin got probation for possession of a dime bag” to see that our drug policy is a failed policy, then you deserve to deal with whatever problems result from clogging up the criminal justice system with a bunch of people who want to smoke a joint.
Like I said earlier, the Netherlands is well documented to have less crime and less drug users than we do here in the United States (particularly amongst 18-24 year olds), thanks in part to their actual drug policy that you chalk up as a “pipe dream”.
Gus
John S I think that you made a pro-legalize LSD argument. When it’s illegal it’s not controlled, so you don’t know what you’re getting. Legalize it (and again, I don’t mean allowing people to go to the drugstore and buy a sheet), and the unpredictability of dosage and purity go away. I remember reading something Timothy Leary said, you should need a license to indulge. A pot license would be something like getting a driver’s license, an LSD license would be like getting a pilot’s license. Maybe there will be too much regulation for the libertarians, but it’s a lot better than making criminals out of people who are looking for a mind altering experience. I see your argument as being like that of someone who thinks organic foods are the way to go. I see your point, but I don’t necessarily agree with it.
LITB Mueller, I want to emphasize that I don’t agree with you, but I know you’re making your arguments in good faith.
Gus
Oh, and full-blown visual and auditory hallucinations are the entire point of taking a HALLUCINOGENIC drug :)(though I prefer the term psychedelic, not as comfortable with entheogenic).
John S.
Gus-
I see where you are coming from, too. Regulation would definitely normalize what would be out there – no doubt about it. Your analogy to a pilot’s license is spot-on, though. I have never really seen anyone freak out on marijuana. I wish I could say the same of LSD.
The overall issue is that proponents of drug laws don’t want anyone to have mind altering experiences – regardless of whether they are of the ‘automotive’ or ‘aviation’ variety. What you are describing is an entirely different cultural view that only exists in native american and aboriginal communities to my knowledge. In those communities, people don’t trip for fun – they do it for a purpose, and as thus respect the drug. This is a lot different than recreational use.
Incidentally, I am a proponent of organic foods, so good call there. My view is that if you are going to consume anything, it should be the purset and most natural form possible. And of course, always consume in moderation.
Gary Williams
Apart from your copius efforts to convince others that you care about people, you fit the conservative, right-wing profile far better. Fiegned empathy immediately had me thinking of Scientology. That search term (the first one I used, btw) and your nym revealed that you have a fondness for Ayn Rand; that you believe empathy for others is little more than an effort by people who want personal affirmation for a good deed done, and who are privately angry when they dont get it. In fact, you told someone that if it wasn’t true that when beggars didn’t thank them for a coin flipped their direction, if it didn’t make them angry. ‘Nuff said…
In short, you’re an intellect looking for an explanation for your own lack of understanding about the emotional appeal of doing a selfless act. You are projecting your own personality onto others as a way of understanding their behaviour, an activity that even the shortest tour of right-wing websites will reveal as being a hallmark of the non-empathic personality.
Come back tommorrow if you feel I’m in error and rewally don;”t know who or what you are, and I’ll be happy to refine my profile. A warning though… There isn’t much left of you now as is, so that might not be in your own best interest — a concept you do understand very well I’m sure.
Gary Williams
Myth #4: Crack Causes Crime and Violence
“The media and drug control officials repeatedly claimed that crack was so powerfully addictive that it drove users to desperate acts of crime and violence. Politicians repeated these claims to justify their uniquely punitive new laws against crack. It turns out, however, that this allegation, too, needs complicating. At the peak of the crack scare, Dr. Paul Goldstein and a group of his colleagues worked with the New York City Police Department to investigate the nature and extent of drug-related homicides in New York City in 1988. Their research was funded by the National Institute of Justice, which later distributed a summary of their report as a model study of an important issue. After reviewing hundreds of homicide cases the police had filed as “drug-related,” Goldsteinʼs team found three distinct ways that drugs and violence can be related (Goldstein et al., 1989).The first type was psychopharmacological, in which people ingest a drug and because of its presumed effects become irritated, excited, enraged, embold-ened, or irrational and thus violent. The second type was what Goldstein and his colleagues called economic compulsive. Here the craving for a drug is held to compel the perpetrator to engage in economic crimes to finance costly drug use, in the course of which crimes something goes wrong and a victim is killed. The third type of drug-related homicide was termed systemic, meaning related to the black market drug distribution system. For example, violence can arise from the exigencies of doing business in illicit drug markets, where the monetary stakes are often very large, but where the parties have no recourse to legal means of dispute resolution. This category included homicides that resulted from territorial disputes between rival dealers, robberies of dealers, and punishment for failing to pay drug or dealing-related debts.Surprisingly, of the 414 homicides in New York City in 1988 that the police defined as drug-related, only 7.5% were psychopharmacological in nature, where a drugʼs effects were said to be the cause. In most of these cases the drug involved was alcohol; only a handful in this category involved crack. Equally unexpected was their finding that only about two percent of the drug-related homicides were of the economic compulsion variety. In these cases, crack users seeking money to finance their use committed robberies or burglaries in which a victim was killed. By far the largest number of drug-related homicides was of the systemic type — nearly three-fourths (74.3%) of the total. That is, the overwhelming majority of drug-related homicides in New York City at the peak of the crack “epidemic” had to do with the dangers of doing business in a black market rather than with the direct behavioral effects of crack or even with crimes born of a craving for crack.”
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:sv6aQRLwq6gJ:sociology.ucsc.edu/directory/reinarman/socialjustice.pdf
Carolyn
The below documentary will be showing on Showtime starting March 5th. I have seen the preview of it an it is well worth the watch. Made me think about just what is really going on.
http://www.americandrugwar.com/
American Drug War: The Last White Hope