Full Version: Taking down the drug war
I've meant to post about this for awhile now, but I haven't had time as of late due tow ork and other constraints. 
The writers of The Wire t.v. show have come out against the war on drugs. They believe that it is nothing more than a two-tiered system that is discriminatory in nature and only serves the interest of politicians, who use it as as "can't lose" issue, at the cost of the lives and incarceration of our youth. 
The article contains some pithy arguments for being against the drug war, but it's most radical portion, is the following line:
Questions for debate:
1.)Would this be a practical tool to end the war on drugs? Why or why not? What strategies would work better?
2.)Is the war on drugs a success, or a continued failure? Why or why not?
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not?
The writers of The Wire t.v. show have come out against the war on drugs. They believe that it is nothing more than a two-tiered system that is discriminatory in nature and only serves the interest of politicians, who use it as as "can't lose" issue, at the cost of the lives and incarceration of our youth. The article contains some pithy arguments for being against the drug war, but it's most radical portion, is the following line:QUOTE
If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.
Jury nullification is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the royal governor of New York, and absent a government capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest. If some few episodes of a television entertainment have caused others to reflect on the war zones we have created in our cities and the human beings stranded there, we ask that those people might also consider their conscience. And when the lawyers or the judge or your fellow jurors seek explanation, think for a moment on Bubbles or Bodie or Wallace. And remember that the lives being held in the balance aren't fictional.
Jury nullification is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the royal governor of New York, and absent a government capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest. If some few episodes of a television entertainment have caused others to reflect on the war zones we have created in our cities and the human beings stranded there, we ask that those people might also consider their conscience. And when the lawyers or the judge or your fellow jurors seek explanation, think for a moment on Bubbles or Bodie or Wallace. And remember that the lives being held in the balance aren't fictional.
Questions for debate:
1.)Would this be a practical tool to end the war on drugs? Why or why not? What strategies would work better?
2.)Is the war on drugs a success, or a continued failure? Why or why not?
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not?
1.)Would this be a practical tool to end the war on drugs? Why or why not? What strategies would work better?
The problem is that it's a very small scale effort, so it would have very little effect one way or the other. You would have to convince lots of potential jurors to do this. In addition to being willing to do this, potential jurors would have to be clever enough to avoid being dismissed from jury duty.
District Attorney: "Will you base your decision to acquit or convict based only on the law and the facts of the case?"
Foolishly honest potential juror: "No, I'm going to acquit anyway."
DA: "Dismissed!"
My contention has been that the best way to deal with substance abuse is to treat it as a medical condition, to be treated, rather than as a crime to be punished. (This does not include actual harmful crimes against people and property done by substance abusers, nor does it include the crimes done by those who victimize substance abusers by supplying them.)
2.)Is the war on drugs a success, or a continued failure? Why or why not?
(I have taken the liberty of changing the word "terror" to "drugs," since this seems to have been a simple error.)
Here's a bunch of statistics dealing with substance abuse in young people, which I believe to be the most important part of the war on drugs.
Link
It's a mixed bag. Here are some highlights.
Note the greater than 50% drop in smoking between 1999 and 2006, as compared with the much smaller drops in marijuana (about 20%) and drinking (about 10%.) If the war on drugs is having some effect, clearly the war on smoking is much more effective.
Apparently those wild libertines in Europe are doing something right.
Decriminalization of "soft" drugs, medical treatment of dependence, and providing accurate information about the very real dangers of drug abuse are all important strategies, I think. Education has worked pretty darn well in reducing the rate of smoking.
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not?
It depends. Somebody caught smoking a joint, I'd probably acquit. Somebody hooked on hard narcotics, I'd probably push hard for mandatory medical treatment. Somebody who is a serious pusher (not just somebody who sold a buddy some pot) I would probably convict, if the evidence were strong. Somebody who actually engaged in harmful crimes because of substance abuse would probably need the appropriate fine or imprisonment which would go to someone who committed such crimes without drug use. However, I would again push hard for mandatory medical treatment on top of the legal punishment.
The problem is that it's a very small scale effort, so it would have very little effect one way or the other. You would have to convince lots of potential jurors to do this. In addition to being willing to do this, potential jurors would have to be clever enough to avoid being dismissed from jury duty.
District Attorney: "Will you base your decision to acquit or convict based only on the law and the facts of the case?"
Foolishly honest potential juror: "No, I'm going to acquit anyway."
DA: "Dismissed!"
My contention has been that the best way to deal with substance abuse is to treat it as a medical condition, to be treated, rather than as a crime to be punished. (This does not include actual harmful crimes against people and property done by substance abusers, nor does it include the crimes done by those who victimize substance abusers by supplying them.)
2.)Is the war on drugs a success, or a continued failure? Why or why not?
(I have taken the liberty of changing the word "terror" to "drugs," since this seems to have been a simple error.)
Here's a bunch of statistics dealing with substance abuse in young people, which I believe to be the most important part of the war on drugs.
Link
It's a mixed bag. Here are some highlights.
QUOTE
In 2006, 5.0 percent of 12th graders reported daily use of marijuana, unchanged from the previous year. This compares with 6.0% in 1999 and 4.9% in 1996. Also in 2006, 25.4% of twelfth graders reported having had 5 or more drinks in a row in the last two weeks, compared with 27.1% the previous year. This compares with 30.8% in 1999 and 30.2% in 1996. And finally in 2006, 5.9% of twelfth graders reported smoking 1/2 pack or more of cigarettes daily, compared with 6.9% in 2005. This compares with 13.2% in 1999 and 13.0% in 1996.
Note the greater than 50% drop in smoking between 1999 and 2006, as compared with the much smaller drops in marijuana (about 20%) and drinking (about 10%.) If the war on drugs is having some effect, clearly the war on smoking is much more effective.
QUOTE
"What is most noteworthy, however, is how little change has occurred in the proportion of 12th graders who say that marijuana is 'fairly' or 'very' easy to get. By this measure, marijuana has been almost universally available to American 12th graders (from 83% to 90%) over at least the past 31 years."
QUOTE
"The US has higher rates of illicit drug use by young people than European nations . . . . in 1999 41% of tenth grade students in the United States had used marijuana or cannabis at least once in their lifetimes. All the participating European countries had a considerably lower rate of lifetime use, averaging 17%. This proportion varied among European countries from 1% in Romania to a high of 35% in France, the United Kingdom, and the Czech Republic. . . . The US also had the highest rates of use of most of the other illicit drugs studied, as well as marijuana, with the important exception of heroin. These included amphetamines, hallucinogens, cocaine, crack, and ecstasy."
Apparently those wild libertines in Europe are doing something right.
Decriminalization of "soft" drugs, medical treatment of dependence, and providing accurate information about the very real dangers of drug abuse are all important strategies, I think. Education has worked pretty darn well in reducing the rate of smoking.
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not?
It depends. Somebody caught smoking a joint, I'd probably acquit. Somebody hooked on hard narcotics, I'd probably push hard for mandatory medical treatment. Somebody who is a serious pusher (not just somebody who sold a buddy some pot) I would probably convict, if the evidence were strong. Somebody who actually engaged in harmful crimes because of substance abuse would probably need the appropriate fine or imprisonment which would go to someone who committed such crimes without drug use. However, I would again push hard for mandatory medical treatment on top of the legal punishment.
Well, I love jury duty- I really do. I try to go in there with most objective and open minded though proccess I can muster. I am also trained in the medical sciences, to some degree, so they like my technical expertise- both sides of the aisle like that stuff, because evidence gathering is so technical these days.
Well, I haven't been allowed to sit for about the last 5 years because of my relationship with the prosecution side.
I have been in two drug cases prior to that as a jurist- and niether made it to deliberation- one was declared a mistrial due to lost evidence
- and the guys walked- accused of moving several pounds of cocain. The other one the guy plead out before deliberations begun, to a non-felony. State's case was pretty shaky in that one.
IF a pot case came before me while I was a jurist- I would absolutely NOT convict if there were no violent crimes also pending, if they told us anyway.
In other words- yes, I would practice it in a heartbeat, and never tell the DA or Defense that I was going to practice jury nullification.
Not a problem in Alaska- possession is still legal due to our very libertarian state constitution!
Well, I haven't been allowed to sit for about the last 5 years because of my relationship with the prosecution side.
I have been in two drug cases prior to that as a jurist- and niether made it to deliberation- one was declared a mistrial due to lost evidence
- and the guys walked- accused of moving several pounds of cocain. The other one the guy plead out before deliberations begun, to a non-felony. State's case was pretty shaky in that one. IF a pot case came before me while I was a jurist- I would absolutely NOT convict if there were no violent crimes also pending, if they told us anyway.
In other words- yes, I would practice it in a heartbeat, and never tell the DA or Defense that I was going to practice jury nullification.
Not a problem in Alaska- possession is still legal due to our very libertarian state constitution!
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not?
Jury nullification in theory is the antithesis of a balanced judicial process. The role of the jury should be to weigh the evidence presented; nothing more and nothing less.
In practice it is evident that the judicial process is not balanced. Laws and practices are skewed to the point where justice equates to punishment, which is wrong (and so very sad...)
So what place then does jury nullification have? My inclination is still to distrust it. If "big government" is unqualified to legislate right from wrong in the grey areas of our daily lives, then 12 random individuals are equally unqualified... And I need no further evidence than CruisingRam's bold admission that he would not only engage in it, but that he would perjure himself during jury selection.
Jury nullification in theory is the antithesis of a balanced judicial process. The role of the jury should be to weigh the evidence presented; nothing more and nothing less.
In practice it is evident that the judicial process is not balanced. Laws and practices are skewed to the point where justice equates to punishment, which is wrong (and so very sad...)
So what place then does jury nullification have? My inclination is still to distrust it. If "big government" is unqualified to legislate right from wrong in the grey areas of our daily lives, then 12 random individuals are equally unqualified... And I need no further evidence than CruisingRam's bold admission that he would not only engage in it, but that he would perjure himself during jury selection.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 23 2008, 06:47 AM) 
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not?
Jury nullification in theory is the antithesis of a balanced judicial process. The role of the jury should be to weigh the evidence presented; nothing more and nothing less.
In practice it is evident that the judicial process is not balanced. Laws and practices are skewed to the point where justice equates to punishment, which is wrong (and so very sad...)
So what place then does jury nullification have? My inclination is still to distrust it. If "big government" is unqualified to legislate right from wrong in the grey areas of our daily lives, then 12 random individuals are equally unqualified... And I need no further evidence than CruisingRam's bold admission that he would not only engage in it, but that he would perjure himself during jury selection.
Jury nullification in theory is the antithesis of a balanced judicial process. The role of the jury should be to weigh the evidence presented; nothing more and nothing less.
In practice it is evident that the judicial process is not balanced. Laws and practices are skewed to the point where justice equates to punishment, which is wrong (and so very sad...)
So what place then does jury nullification have? My inclination is still to distrust it. If "big government" is unqualified to legislate right from wrong in the grey areas of our daily lives, then 12 random individuals are equally unqualified... And I need no further evidence than CruisingRam's bold admission that he would not only engage in it, but that he would perjure himself during jury selection.
I don't think I would lie- since they really don't quiz you on if you believe in the law or not- I have not been asked that question, ever.
But, to be honest here- you really don't often get simple possession of narcotics charges making it to trial very often up here- I don't know if it is different where you are from- but we don't have the resources to prosecute those laws much. Most of the time, it is intent to distribute, money laundering, felon in possession of a gun and some sort of violence that actually make it to trial. Most simple possession gets the plea or dropped for lack of evidence- in fact, "dropped for lack of evidence" happens in more than 90% of simple drug possession charges- and, since possession fo marijuana up to four ounces is legal- the cops simply don't waste thier time with small grow rooms or simple possession. If the cop catches you smoking some pot while driving- you get a driving under the influence charge- NOT a possession charge.
Jury nullification is ethical, moral and an important check against tyranny of the majority or a defense against demegogues looking to make political points without care for the consequences of the policy.
It has also been badly abused, as seen in the south by all white juries allowing murderers and rapists to walk free when the crimes were commited against blacks.
Double edged sword and all that.
[Questions for debate:
1.)Would this be a practical tool to end the war on drugs? Why or why not? What strategies would work better? Perhaps, its worth tyring.
2.)Is the war on drugs a success, or a continued failure? Why or why not?
It is neither a success, nor a failure. It's simply ongoing, just like the "War on Murder" is ongoing, and the "War on Dandruff" continues apace.
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not? I would use jury nullification if I felt it necessary. Drug charges would present a pretty high bar for me to engage in nullification.
1.)Would this be a practical tool to end the war on drugs? Why or why not? What strategies would work better? Perhaps, its worth tyring.
2.)Is the war on drugs a success, or a continued failure? Why or why not?
It is neither a success, nor a failure. It's simply ongoing, just like the "War on Murder" is ongoing, and the "War on Dandruff" continues apace.
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not? I would use jury nullification if I felt it necessary. Drug charges would present a pretty high bar for me to engage in nullification.
UltimateJoe:
Aren't the people the source of power? Aren't they the ultimate source of decision making?; their input the necessary ingredients for wise and prudent governing?
What if the law is unjust? Also, should juries simply be manipulated pools of justice that are shaped by what the prosecution or judge decides? Do not the latter two entittes try to shape a decision by giving "guidance" to juries?
Bikerdad:
Yet, we don't have the highest number of peoplein the world who have dandruff, let alone murder rates. We do however, have a terribly high rate of incarceration with terrible little to show for it in regards to what is positive for society. We just have a revolving door system that does nothing for those who are users, but it does help politicians get elected. Is there simply nothing else we should do?
QUOTE
My inclination is still to distrust it. If "big government" is unqualified to legislate right from wrong in the grey areas of our daily lives, then 12 random individuals are equally unqualified...
Aren't the people the source of power? Aren't they the ultimate source of decision making?; their input the necessary ingredients for wise and prudent governing?
QUOTE
The role of the jury should be to weigh the evidence presented; nothing more and nothing less.
What if the law is unjust? Also, should juries simply be manipulated pools of justice that are shaped by what the prosecution or judge decides? Do not the latter two entittes try to shape a decision by giving "guidance" to juries?
Bikerdad:
QUOTE
It is neither a success, nor a failure. It's simply ongoing, just like the "War on Murder" is ongoing, and the "War on Dandruff" continues apace.
Yet, we don't have the highest number of peoplein the world who have dandruff, let alone murder rates. We do however, have a terribly high rate of incarceration with terrible little to show for it in regards to what is positive for society. We just have a revolving door system that does nothing for those who are users, but it does help politicians get elected. Is there simply nothing else we should do?
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Mar 24 2008, 10:11 AM)
UltimateJoe:
Aren't the people the source of power? Aren't they the ultimate source of decision making?; their input the necessary ingredients for wise and prudent governing?
QUOTE
My inclination is still to distrust it. If "big government" is unqualified to legislate right from wrong in the grey areas of our daily lives, then 12 random individuals are equally unqualified...
Aren't the people the source of power? Aren't they the ultimate source of decision making?; their input the necessary ingredients for wise and prudent governing?
For the most part, the power is in the form of rights that were endowed to us by "our Creator" and we set up a government to secure these rights. Juries as neutral judgers of fact and weighers (?) of evidence are part of this government. Some would disagree. I'm against jury nullification, whether to let people off for murder, drugs, whatever.
QUOTE
QUOTE
The role of the jury should be to weigh the evidence presented; nothing more and nothing less.
What if the law is unjust? Also, should juries simply be manipulated pools of justice that are shaped by what the prosecution or judge decides? Do not the latter two entittes try to shape a decision by giving "guidance" to juries?
As noted, the jury should weigh the evidence, nothing more and nothing less.
If the law is unjust, we should repeal it. Wouldn't that be nice - less laws instead of constantly adding new ones? Seriously, if the Supreme Court can rule that growing pot in California is illegal due to "interstate commerce," said judges should be impeached.
Coincidentally, we appear to be on the cusp of a complete return to the Jimmy Carter 70's in every way. Barney Frank is going to introduce a bill decriminalizing pot. Just like the late 70's, when NORML was playing the Carter white house in softball.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Mar 22 2008, 04:21 PM)
1.)Would this be a practical tool to end the war on drugs? Why or why not? What strategies would work better?
Unfortunately, no. Less than 1% of all drug arrests result in a jury verdict either way - the rest get dismissed, diverted, or plea bargained out at some earlier stage of the system, so it would only affect a tiny percentage of the problem.
A better strategy would be to elect candidates who promise to end the ridiculous War on Drugs and support more common sense approaches.
QUOTE
2.)Is the war on drugs a success, or a continued failure? Why or why not?
By any reasonable metric you can imagine, an utter failure.
QUOTE
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not?
Unfortunately, I will never be eligible to serve on another jury again, unless they change the rules.
QUOTE
A better strategy would be to elect candidates who promise to end the ridiculous War on Drugs and support more common sense approaches.
For the number of people who believe it is a farce, I'm shocked that it's still a "third rail" so to speak, to be against the drug wars. Only the Libertarians have a thoughtful position on the issue. The democrats and republicans will not be moved to either side as one fears looking weak, and another uses the issue to look "tough on crime" to get elected.
QUOTE
By any reasonable metric you can imagine, an utter failure.
I would like for someone to show statistically, that our rates of usage and treatment are better than that of Europe. I imagine I would be like one of thos guys in the Snickers commercial-you know the line, "not going anywhere for awhile?".......
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Mar 24 2008, 11:11 AM)
UltimateJoe:
Aren't the people the source of power? Aren't they the ultimate source of decision making?; their input the necessary ingredients for wise and prudent governing?
What if the law is unjust? Also, should juries simply be manipulated pools of justice that are shaped by what the prosecution or judge decides? Do not the latter two entittes try to shape a decision by giving "guidance" to juries?
QUOTE
My inclination is still to distrust it. If "big government" is unqualified to legislate right from wrong in the grey areas of our daily lives, then 12 random individuals are equally unqualified...
Aren't the people the source of power? Aren't they the ultimate source of decision making?; their input the necessary ingredients for wise and prudent governing?
QUOTE
The role of the jury should be to weigh the evidence presented; nothing more and nothing less.
What if the law is unjust? Also, should juries simply be manipulated pools of justice that are shaped by what the prosecution or judge decides? Do not the latter two entittes try to shape a decision by giving "guidance" to juries?
I am 100% behind the concept of jury nullification, as I consider it to be one of the key elements in the balance of powers that underpins our system of governance. From my perspective, the jury sits both in judgement of the facts, and of the law.
QUOTE
Bikerdad:
Yet, we don't have the highest number of peoplein the world who have dandruff, let alone murder rates. We do however, have a terribly high rate of incarceration with terrible little to show for it in regards to what is positive for society. We just have a revolving door system that does nothing for those who are users, but it does help politicians get elected. Is there simply nothing else we should do?
Sorry, but you are too cynical. First, the "War on Drugs" is much more than simply a vehicle for politicians to get elected. Second, why should we do anything for those that are users? If you're arguing from a libertarian position, hey, they want to have the fun, they get to bear the pain also, ain't our problem. Should different approaches to the "War on Drugs" be tried? Sure. Should we embrace recreational drug use willy nilly? Heck no! I'm for the federalization (notice the lower case, its important) of the matter. If Californication wants to become the Mecca of tokers and jokers, fine, let them. If Iowa wants to start putting meth lab operators in front of firing squads, fine.QUOTE
It is neither a success, nor a failure. It's simply ongoing, just like the "War on Murder" is ongoing, and the "War on Dandruff" continues apace.
Yet, we don't have the highest number of peoplein the world who have dandruff, let alone murder rates. We do however, have a terribly high rate of incarceration with terrible little to show for it in regards to what is positive for society. We just have a revolving door system that does nothing for those who are users, but it does help politicians get elected. Is there simply nothing else we should do?
One of the logical problems faced by the libertarian approach is they lack any grounds for drawing a line anywhere. In truth, there is no basis within the libertarian (which is the purported underpinnings of most legalization efforts) philosophy to make drunk driving a crime. As a result, any and all drugs would be legal, regardless of how destructive they may be. Sorry, but that's a recipe for disaster.
If you're not arguing from the libertarian perspective, well, then the above doesn't exactly apply to your position, but my remains the same. Drug prohibition and control should a) be almost exclusively a state matter, and
any state's citizenry with a lick of sense will continue the War on Drugs, although I'd hope to see some serious variations in how they go about doing so.
Actually- BD- the Libertarian party DOES condone making ACTIONS that have a direct line to harm to a victim illegal- drunk driving is definately one of those- operating a vehicle while intoxicated has a direct, easily pointed out, harm to others- we don't want Alcohol illegal- just bad actions while intoxicated. A fairly substansial number what stronger penalties for "dimished capacity" crimes commited while "under the influence".
In other words- get all high all you want- just don't harm anyone else while you do it, and don't do something dangerous that could directly harm another.
In other words- get all high all you want- just don't harm anyone else while you do it, and don't do something dangerous that could directly harm another.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Mar 22 2008, 04:21 PM)
I've meant to post about this for awhile now, but I haven't had time as of late due tow ork and other constraints. The writers of The Wire t.v. show have come out against the war on drugs. They believe that it is nothing more than a two-tiered system that is discriminatory in nature and only serves the interest of politicians, who use it as as "can't lose" issue, at the cost of the lives and incarceration of our youth. The article contains some pithy arguments for being against the drug war, but it's most radical portion, is the following line:
Questions for debate:
1.)Would this be a practical tool to end the war on drugs? Why or why not? What strategies would work better?
2.)Is the war on drugs a success, or a continued failure? Why or why not?
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not?
The writers of The Wire t.v. show have come out against the war on drugs. They believe that it is nothing more than a two-tiered system that is discriminatory in nature and only serves the interest of politicians, who use it as as "can't lose" issue, at the cost of the lives and incarceration of our youth. The article contains some pithy arguments for being against the drug war, but it's most radical portion, is the following line:QUOTE
If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.
Jury nullification is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the royal governor of New York, and absent a government capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest. If some few episodes of a television entertainment have caused others to reflect on the war zones we have created in our cities and the human beings stranded there, we ask that those people might also consider their conscience. And when the lawyers or the judge or your fellow jurors seek explanation, think for a moment on Bubbles or Bodie or Wallace. And remember that the lives being held in the balance aren't fictional.
Jury nullification is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the royal governor of New York, and absent a government capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest. If some few episodes of a television entertainment have caused others to reflect on the war zones we have created in our cities and the human beings stranded there, we ask that those people might also consider their conscience. And when the lawyers or the judge or your fellow jurors seek explanation, think for a moment on Bubbles or Bodie or Wallace. And remember that the lives being held in the balance aren't fictional.
Questions for debate:
1.)Would this be a practical tool to end the war on drugs? Why or why not? What strategies would work better?
2.)Is the war on drugs a success, or a continued failure? Why or why not?
3.)If called to serve on a jury, will you use jury nullification as the authors' suggest you should do? Why or why not?
1) This process is antithetical to our jury system. Our recourse here is voting for representatives who can re-tailor our laws. Jury nullification would undermine the entire legal system.
2) Before I answer this one, please see this summary:
According to a report recently released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, illegal drugs drained $143.4 billion from the U.S. economy in 1998. The majority of these costs--$98.5 billion--resulted from lost productivity due to drug-related illnesses and deaths, as well as incarcerations and work hours missed by crime victims.
http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/drugs/said...New.asp?ID=1247
This number is from 1998. Ten years later, I am sure the number is exponentially higher. And this includes only lost productivity. Extra health care costs, domestic violence costs, etc., are NOT included.
What ever else you want to say about drug use, it costs us a fortune, and legalizing it will not regain our lost productivity but will only exacerbate the problem.
So, is the war on drugs a "failure"? A better question is, do we have any choice? We may be able to better tailor our laws, but we must have laws prohibiting illegal drug use.
3) See 1 above.
We lose lots of productivity from alcohol abuse, too. Why give it a pass? Because alcohol is a time- honored social lubricant and is endemic to our culture. Pot, cocaine, meth, heroin, etc., are not, on either score.
I have studied Milton Friedman's work on de-criminalizing drugs. Considering all the problems we experience with teen alcohol abuse, I cannot see how Mr. Friedman's policy will be anything other than an unmitigated disaster. "Lead us not into temptation". The argument that there is some kind of natural saturation rate on addiction is not compelling to me, either. There is considerable evidence that people's minds and systems changewith the use of drugs (and with other pursuits)--there is no upper limit on drug use, or any other habit. See link:
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/coke/a/blnida030825.htm
The reason our drug laws disproportionately affect the poor and downtrodden is because this group generally have the worst social habits. I do not know if these habits are cause or effect, but they are there and I see it in doing mission work. There may be other ways to help them, but giving them a pass so they can sit in their trailers and churn out more meth is not it.
Ultimately, the solution to illegal drug abuse is for Americans to realize that we all owe each other our best effort--not legally, but morally. When we so realize, drug use will ratchet down. Until then, I doubt it will, as most of us see it as no one's business but our own how badly we waste our talents, be it on drugs, on watching mindless TV, or on being slothful.
QUOTE
The reason our drug laws disproportionately affect the poor and downtrodden is because this group generally have the worst social habits..
Actually, that isn't the case. We are talking about bad social habits, it's just that in our sentencing procedures, we penalized crack cocaine over powdered cocaine. The wealthy like the latter, which is more expensive. All the while, we added stiffer penalties to the former which the poorer half uses. Being lazy or shitfless has nothing to do whether or not you use drugs, it depends on whether or not you do crack in the projects; or do so with your yuppie friends at Andover or St. Andrews and dad has his money and lawyer friends to help you out, not that it would be impossible given the sentencing discrepancies in the past. Both habits are bad, our laws tended to favor the privileged, as was this case. Progress has been made on this issue, which is a good thing.
Even with sentencing provisions revised and equalty for what is essentially, equal drug use(a key fact left out in the "poor bring it on themselves" argument) we still haven't addressed that building more prisons and throwing a record number of people behind bars, still doesn't solve the situation one iota. Perhaps we need to lock the congress-critters in the capitol building and bar the dars. It will be like the Snickers ad: Not going anywhere for awhile?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 3 2008, 11:44 AM)
Actually- BD- the Libertarian party DOES condone making ACTIONS that have a direct line to harm to a victim illegal- drunk driving is definately one of those- operating a vehicle while intoxicated has a direct, easily pointed out, harm to others- we don't want Alcohol illegal- just bad actions while intoxicated. A fairly substansial number what stronger penalties for "dimished capacity" crimes commited while "under the influence".
In other words- get all high all you want- just don't harm anyone else while you do it, and don't do something dangerous that could directly harm another.
In other words- get all high all you want- just don't harm anyone else while you do it, and don't do something dangerous that could directly harm another.
Therein lies the logical problem. Libertarian legal philosophy rests upon the concept actual harm. Somebody driving down the street drunk hasn't harmed anybody. Placing others at greater risk is a whole 'nudder ball of wax, because once again you get into "where do you draw the line?" No matter where you draw it, you are infringing upon somebody's rights based on the chance that their actions may harm someone else. If no harm, then you've 'fouled' the infringee.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.