American Drug War Doc.

Watched a documentary this weekend- and yes it did have a bit of liberal view and stated how both Bush's and Reagan were evil (although interesting evidence presented about shady drug funds to help aid the Contras), but the point that hit home the hardest was the stark difference between the US and Holland with the treatment of drugs- Holland has decriminalized use of drugs so non-violent drug users don't go to prison for possession or use. I think this would help our country greatly, but the prison-for-profit deal that's growing right now is probably a great stop for that to ever happen. Just wanted your guys' input. Do you think that decriminalizing non-violent drug offenses (we're talking users not sellers here) would help unclog our legal system and reduce the overpopulation in our jails? And maybe, just maybe, get Sheriff Arpaio to STFU for a bit. I think our "war on drugs" that was started by Nixon in '71 has been the longest, most expensive mistake we've ever made. $101M/yr in 1973, over $22B/yr today, that's a lot of fat we could trim, and let's not forget how much we'd save in prison costs if we didn't have over 1.3M inmates that were convicted on non-violent drug offenses.

Here's the IMDB link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1033467/
It's on Netflix instant.

As a LEO, I do get tired of all the rhetoric of how many people are in prison for possession or use of illegal drugs. Do you really believe people are serving prison sentences in Colorado for simple possession? No, they are not. Those arrested for possession alone, are sentenced to probation and substance abuse counseling. Usually, and this is how the information is skewed, people plead to possession that were caught with substantial quantities, selling, or manufacturing and their plea bargain is to possession. I emphasize PRISON verses JAIL. There may be some jail time in some cases, but it is limited. There is a large difference between PRISON and JAIL and Ronin discusses the PRIVATE PRISON industry.

I won't comment on the war on drugs, as there are too many who feel it was a wasted attempt and I don't want to get into a long, drawn out discussion. That being said, do you feel there has not been a dent at all made in the supply system, although I would agree there has been no dent in the demand. Of all the tons of drugs seized annually, how much more of a problem would there be if they had not been seized?

I disagree with the use of private prisons and feel that is a entity of the government where private enterprise should not be allowed. However, that door was opened a long time ago and there are private companies running prisons in Colorado, running transport companies that shuttle prisoners state to state and prison to prison at the request of local, county and state agencies. Can the private company do it cheaper, more efficient than the government? I don't know. Does it save us, the taxpayer money? I don't know that either.

While all valid points, the issue is the criminalization of users still exists. Instead of punishment for addiction we should help, not hurt- probation, plus charges of misdemeanor possession hurt the ones who seek help, get off their drug of choice and clean up their act, but still hit walls and closed doors because of the drug charge on their record.

Also, there is ample evidence out there that since the drug war began the flow of illegal narcotics into America has increased over the last 35 years, the quality of drugs has gone up, and the cost has been driven down. I have a friend who was on probation because he was found- in a friends house- with pot and mushrooms- both things that grow in the ground mind you, and shortly after the hearing was fired from his job. So what does he do now? Sells pot because it pays way better than flipping burgers. Prohibition on something that has no attributed deaths relating to direct use (we won't talk about driving or other hazardous activities), and is not even 10% as addictive as cigarettes sounds like absolute silliness to me. And numerous scientific studies show that MMJ does help with glaucoma and cancer patients where no other treatment (legally) can help them cope and sustain themselves exists.

I just wish I was a half way house owning judge [Beer]


I do know people who steal to buy pot that don't do other drugs, a relative by marriage that's spent a few tours in the grey bar motel. I agree a doobie shouldn't result in jail time but I don't want the crap sold at walmart either. Drug wars are not the worst thing our tax dollars get spent on.

i think the war on drugs is a joke. our govt cant even keep dope out of our own prisons! drugs are here to stay, like it or not. people are going to get high even if its illegal. instead of throwing people in jail for non violent crimes, we should put that money into voluntary rehab centers (like Amsterdam). it will let people respect our govt more if they approach drugs as drugs, instead of violent criminals. yes, i know some drugs does cause violence, but what we are doing to stop drug USE is stupid. Ron Paul has a great plan. all the drug dealers/cartel will have to find a new line of work. at least legalize weed! alcohol is our biggest problem, not weed, and its legal. dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ak47Ar15Glock26

i think the war on drugs is a joke. our govt cant even keep dope out of our own prisons! drugs are here to stay, like it or not. people are going to get high even if its illegal. instead of throwing people in jail for non violent crimes, we should put that money into voluntary rehab centers (like Amsterdam). it will let people respect our govt more if they approach drugs as drugs, instead of violent criminals. yes, i know some drugs does cause violence, but what we are doing to stop drug USE is stupid. Ron Paul has a great plan. all the drug dealers/cartel will have to find a new line of work. at least legalize weed! alcohol is our biggest problem, not weed, and its legal. dumb.

---

Well put. Holland has a great idea on the approach to drugs and if you look at the statistics of use there compared to here it's shocking. They "tolerate" weed and mushroom use, and since drugs won't get you locked up or even fined they kinda got bored with it and have probably the lowest use of meth of any civilized nation in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

While all valid points, the issue is the criminalization of users still exists. Instead of punishment for addiction we should help, not hurt- probation, plus charges of misdemeanor possession hurt the ones who seek help, get off their drug of choice and clean up their act, but still hit walls and closed doors because of the drug charge on their record.

Also, there is ample evidence out there that since the drug war began the flow of illegal narcotics into America has increased over the last 35 years, the quality of drugs has gone up, and the cost has been driven down. I have a friend who was on probation because he was found- in a friends house- with pot and mushrooms- both things that grow in the ground mind you, and shortly after the hearing was fired from his job. So what does he do now? Sells pot because it pays way better than flipping burgers. Prohibition on something that has no attributed deaths relating to direct use (we won't talk about driving or other hazardous activities), and is not even 10% as addictive as cigarettes sounds like absolute silliness to me. And numerous scientific studies show that MMJ does help with glaucoma and cancer patients where no other treatment (legally) can help them cope and sustain themselves exists.

---

There's no doubt the flow of drugs has increased, the quality has increased and the price has stayed the same for the past 20 years that I've been a cop. Why? The demand. The demand has driven all this. To give up and throw in the towell isn't going to stop or even slow the demand at all, and in fact, would probably increase the demand. The argument that people would try a drug and quit due to boredom as it wasn't illegal is naive.

I really hate the argument that "is it natural" and grows in the ground and shouldn't be illegal is idiotic. Coca leaves grow in the ground, are chewed (and processed into cocaine for the lazy snorting Americans), Poppies are grown in the ground and the poppy buds are cut and the opiate removed (it can be processed later for refined morphine, heroin, etc) and used, Khat is grown in the ground and chewed. Peyote as well.

The argument that marijuana is only 10% as addictive as cigarettes is crap and the statistics are based upon who is doing the survey or case study and their slant or bias. The pro marijuana people want to make people believe it is a harmless plant that doesn't cause any societal issues.

There have been studies that show the active ingredient THC has some assistance in limited use cases, but the pro marijuana people do not want to admit that Marinol is as good, if not better for those types of cases, than smoking it as the delivery system is better. They will argue that the pill form of Marinol (a synthetic THC) doesn't stay down long enough for the drugs to take effect, but don't want to address the Marinol patch, which is even a faster form of delivery.

The biggest issue with the drug issue is, the side effects of the drug culture, the drug addiction, the drug purchasing. The fact that a lot of property crime is directly related to drug use and abuse. A lot of crime is conducted in order to purchase drugs, due to addiction. The legalization isn't going to change that; they are still going to want to buy drugs and if you don't have money, you will do what it takes to get money to buy your drugs.

Cocaine is cheaper and more readily available now than it was when Reagan was president name me something else that is???

Synthetic TCH is manufactured by massive drug conglomerates, people can grow marajuana in there house or back yard (almost free of cost), sounds like Big Business bullshit to me. Pfizer wants to be your pusher...

War on drugs is a joke... I big, expensive, civil rights destroying joke...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

Cocaine is cheaper and more readily available now than it was when Reagan was president name me something else that is???

Synthetic TCH is manufactured by massive drug conglomerates, people can grow marajuana in there house or back yard (almost free of cost), sounds like Big Business bullshit to me. Pfizer wants to be your pusher...

War on drugs is a joke... I big, expensive, civil rights destroying joke...

---

Well said! That was another point made by the doc, pfizer and other pharma companies are some of the biggest members of the "Partnership for a drug free America." I hate that we probably will never convince OneGuy that walking around in a circle is not a good way to get from point A to Point B (IE: The drug war) and that maybe an alternative is a good call right now. I've seen the studies- because all scientists are biased right?- and synthetic THC actually is not healthy and can have some pretty bad side effects. On top of that, the potency and effectiveness of synth. THC is about 20% by comparison to cannabis.

Notice he didn't say anything about it's health hazards (with the exception of smoking) because not one person, ever, in the history of the world, has died from use of marijuana. Ever. It's a fact that cannot be disputed. But, if we look at the figures: in 2006 17,000 people died from illegal opiates, 24,000 people died from amphetamines; 80,000 died from abuse of prescription drugs, over 100,000 deaths from alcohol, and 450,000 deaths related to tobacco use.... so really, which is more dangerous? If a guy decides to use a drug in his own home, he should be free to do so. It's not my life so if he wants to throw it away and shoot up heroin then let him- drugs only hurt the ones who use, let's work instead on education and rehabilitation instead of prosecution and the perpetuation of cops being overzealous and having to try and make a big drug bust every time they stop someone (not all are like this, but I've been on a ride along with a Jeffco K9 unit who did a search on every traffic stop looking for drugs).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

Cocaine is cheaper and more readily available now than it was when Reagan was president name me something else that is???

Synthetic TCH is manufactured by massive drug conglomerates, people can grow marajuana in there house or back yard (almost free of cost), sounds like Big Business bullshit to me. Pfizer wants to be your pusher...

War on drugs is a joke... I big, expensive, civil rights destroying joke...

---

Frankly, all drugs are about the same in price as they have been for about 20 years now, as I previously stated. I haven't seen an increase in street prices we pay for drugs in that time. Sometimes the price is dependent upon location and availability, but not too out of the norm.

Yes, synthetic THC is made by a drug company. Natural THC can be grown. So what? The argument that "it is natural" that Ronin was posing, was a false argument, and the same argument that all the pro-marijuana people, the pro-legalization people want to put out there at nauseum to support their agenda. "It's for the cancer patients", so please vote yes on Amendment 20...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

I hate that we probably will never convince OneGuy that walking around in a circle is not a good way to get from point A to Point B (IE: The drug war) and that maybe an alternative is a good call right now.

---

Nope, you are right. You will never convince me that legalization is the way to go in this country. Seen and dealth with too much aftermath of the drug addicted to be convinced that legalization is best. Even your precious Nederlands are rethinking their position.

Here is a link. It is to the DEA, which I know is a tad biased, but no different than your pro-drug references.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm

I'll add one other item and be done with this. You mention we should work on education and rehabilitation instead of prosecution. Who is going to pay for that education and rehabilitation? The taxpayer? I thought you were a conservative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

Who is going to pay for that education and rehabilitation? The taxpayer? I thought you were a conservative.

---

Not to side one way or the other on legalization, but what is cheaper? Incarceration or rehabilitation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

Frankly, all drugs are about the same in price as they have been for about 20 years now

---

With all due respect, you are mistaken on that. Cocaine is 1/4th to 1/5th the price it was in the 70's-80's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

The argument that "it is natural"

---

My problem is people would be forced to Pfizer/Merck/Etc garbage from massive companies that would just as soon poison you and lie about it. These companies don't want you to be able to grow you own drugs, that's their business and they will throw you in jail if you try to compete.

We should try something different, obviously the war on drugs is a failure of biblical proportions...

I agree that the war on drugs is a waste.

The government should subsidize the deadliest and easiest-to-overdose drugs.

The problem will take care of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhood001

Not to side one way or the other on legalization, but what is cheaper? Incarceration or rehabilitation?

---

Again, as stated earlier, there isn't anyone in the Colorado penal system there for a simple possession conviction. The vast majority of all convicted of simple possession get probation and rehabilitation. So we already have rehabiliation working on those people as well as those who self identify that they have a problem and get help. Most of these two are on their own dime, although there are governement programs to assist in the payment if necessary.

For legalization, it has been theorized that you will have a large increase of users and abusers, those unintentionally addicted, and mostly the younger generations. They will then require assistance in getting off it and depending upon the type of drug, the assistance may be counseling or hospitalization. Since most drug abusers do not have assets or funds, the money to pay for the care would be similar in nature to those who utilize emergency rooms without insurance; cash funded, don't pay the hospital bill or medicaid.

So simple answer....? I haven't a clue. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

With all due respect, you are mistaken on that. Cocaine is 1/4th to 1/5th the price it was in the 70's-80's
My problem is people would be forced to Pfizer/Merck/Etc garbage from massive companies that would just as soon poison you and lie about it. These companies don't want you to be able to grow you own drugs, that's their business and they will throw you in jail if you try to compete.

We should try something different, obviously the war on drugs is a failure of biblical proportions...

---

I can't say from experience what the price of cocaine was in the 70-80's. I can only say from the last 20 years, which is the time I've been a cop and have worked narcotics and that price has remained pretty steady those two decades.

I can't say what would be better or worse. If we are talking legitimate medicine for a legitimate medical condition like nausea from cancer, then I wouldn't have an issue of someone using marijuana, if they didn't want to use Marinol. However, given the vast majority of MMJ cards are for "chronic pain", I'm not an advocate of that as it is being used as a back door for legalization.

War on Drugs...win or lose...I don't know. It hasn't gotten any easier these past two decades. I do know the flow of drugs to the U.S. has continually increased due to increased demand, increased population and a possibly...a decreased moral aptitude. But, with most social issues, a liberal approach has flowed over us and we all who refuse to budge as the wave is coming are considered uninformed, unwilling to budge, racist, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

So simple answer....? I haven't a clue. What do you think?

---

I'm not sure myself.

I would like to see the amount of time spent by LEOs and the court system on possession cases eliminated if it was at all possible. While I understand what you're saying in regards to nobody serving time for simple possession, I'm assuming that those people are still booked and ran through the system for all but the most minor offenses. And even in the most minor offenses, they're still given a ticket that requires follow-up by the legal system are they not?

I won't pretend for a second that I know the solution to our countries drug issues, but I do believe in personal freedoms. If that freedom includes someone's right to fuck their life up, so be it.

The dredges of society seem to maintain their numbers whether there is a war on drugs or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhood001

I'm not sure myself.

I would like to see the amount of time spent by LEOs and the court system on possession cases eliminated if it was at all possible. While I understand what you're saying in regards to nobody serving time for simple possession, I'm assuming that those people are still booked and ran through the system for all but the most minor offenses. And even in the most minor offenses, they're still given a ticket that requires follow-up by the legal system are they not?

I won't pretend for a second that I know the solution to our countries drug issues, but I do believe in personal freedoms. If that freedom includes someone's right to fuck their life up, so be it.

The dredges of society seem to maintain their numbers whether there is a war on drugs or not.

---

Yes, you are correct that they are still arrested, booked and processed through the court. Some are misdemeanors, some are felonies. The exception being marijuana possession less than 2 ounces, which is a citation with a $100 fine attached and is classified as a petty offense.

The dregs could be attributed to a number of things, but I agree with your assessment.

The only issue I have about the personal freedom argument is, I just know from extensive experience that people who live that lifestyle, live for drugs, don't usually have money as they don't usually have a steady, legitimate job. Because of that lack of income to buy their favorite party treat, they tend to violate other's personal freedoms, their personal property, in some cases, their lives to steal your property, your identity, your checking or credit cards in order to fund their habits. That is my major concern/issue with the whole argument of legalization.

The issue I have with this whole debate is the presumption that the general populace cannot be trusted with a choice. The idea that peoples choices need to be regulated is really unfortunate. Years of people trusting the govt. to decide what is good and safe for them has brought us to where we are now.

If you really need the govt. to tell you that doing meth is a bad idea, perhaps it is O.K. if you remove yourself from society through excess use. Problem solves itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THe Yetti

The issue I have with this whole debate is the presumption that the general populace cannot be trusted with a choice. The idea that peoples choices need to be regulated is really unfortunate. Years of people trusting the govt. to decide what is good and safe for them has brought us to where we are now.

If you really need the govt. to tell you that doing meth is a bad idea, perhaps it is O.K. if you remove yourself from society through excess use. Problem solves itself.

---

Great post..

Pfizer, Merck....etc

Do you call yourself a patient or a junkie? The only difference is who takes your money.

It seems to me that pharma products are far more dangerous. Afterall, they pump ADD kids up with 'legal' meth.

Didn't read page 3, but here we go:
FACT: To buy alcohol you need to be 21 (sure there are ways around this but the law states...), drug dealers don't card!
FACT: 65% of high school seniors (age 17-19) surveyed in 2008 said they drink because it's illegal- rebel factor.
FACT: 90% of pharmaceutics are chemical based. 90% of MMJ sold in the state of CA is unaltered by chemicals other than fertilizer and plant food.
FACT: DEA Lies aside, doctors have discovered that MDMA (key ingredient in ecstasy) has some psychological benefits for therapeutic treatments.
FACT: Since 2004 the US Government has spent over $20 BILLION/yr combating drugs. The average drug cartel income is estimated in the $600 BILLION/yr range (by some estimates one former DEA supervisor stated cartels, as long as there is demand in the US, have "Unlimited funding.")
FACT: The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
I'm not saying legalize all illegal drugs, decriminalize- it's a different thing. Also, in Holland the government has pure and controlled heroin to help patients going through withdraw from addiction. They offer programs that are 150% more effective than what we have here. How about instead of $20-30B a year on the drug war, we spend no even 1/4 of that to help with education and rehab. Tolerate the less harmful drug use, and maybe nip the problem in the bud. Illegal or not, people are still going to use, it's common sense, why not let people have the freedom to choose, but before they do give them education that's not funded by pfizer and the other big pharma companies (I'm talking about DARE, since it seemed to work so well for me: in my life I've tried MDMA, Coke, weed, and even abused prescrip drugs, and I graduated DARE).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

For legalization, it has been theorized that you will have a large increase of users and abusers, those unintentionally addicted, and mostly the younger generations. They will then require assistance in getting off it and depending upon the type of drug, the assistance may be counseling or hospitalization. Since most drug abusers do not have assets or funds, the money to pay for the care would be similar in nature to those who utilize emergency rooms without insurance; cash funded, don't pay the hospital bill or medicaid.

---

Well if you look at what happened in Portugal in 2001 when they decriminalized all drugs usage rates only rose 1-3% for most drugs and for other drugs the usage rates actually fell. There has not been a rise in other crimes associated with the decriminalization and they estimate they are saving hundreds of millions per year in not fighting the problem. Also one side effect was now that the drugs are open and safer the rates of HIV and other diseases associated with drug use have seen a sharp decline as well.

That said there is probably a large cultural difference also. Their rates after decriminalization are still mostly lower than here in the US where the drugs are still illegal. And the american "attitude" is not the same same in portugal so you can't say for certain that there would be a similar outcome here.

Let us not forget that Alcohol destroys more lives than all the other drugs combined. Yet is perfectly legal and is forcibly advertised to us and children alike.

No solutions here, just a few observations. In think some type of decriminalization should be considered. Additionally, rescheduling of narcotics; in no way should Pot be considered the same type (level) of drug as Heroin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

Let us not forget that Alcohol destroys more lives than all the other drugs combined. Yet is perfectly legal and is forcibly advertised to us and children alike.

No solutions here, just a few observations. In think some type of decriminalization should be considered. Additionally, rescheduling of narcotics; in no way should Pot be considered the same type (level) of drug as Heroin.

---

Along that same line- they also are sending people the wrong message when they have pot (schedule I) and cocaine (schedule II)... wait, coke is less dangerous that marijuana?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delfuego

Let us not forget that Alcohol destroys more lives than all the other drugs combined. Yet is perfectly legal and is forcibly advertised to us and children alike.

No solutions here, just a few observations. In think some type of decriminalization should be considered. Additionally, rescheduling of narcotics; in no way should Pot be considered the same type (level) of drug as Heroin.

---

Actually nicotine(cigarettes) could be considered to kill more people than alcohol, and it is vastly more addictive and deadly(50mg of nicotine will kill you). I did some volunteer work at a rehab facility, you would be amazed how many people have an easier time kicking a cocaine or heroine habit than the do quitting smoking. If anything is illegal it should be nicotine. Nicotine isn't usually directly responsible for the death, but it serve no purpose other than it's strong addictive properties.

I saw some references to the Netherlands, however I think Portugal is a far more interesting case-study. Portugal made a rather dramatic about face in it's policy just over ten years ago. The results are in:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_po...l#Observations

H.

a good movie to watch if you have netflix is The Union. The Business Behind Getting High.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

The only issue I have about the personal freedom argument is, I just know from extensive experience that people who live that lifestyle, live for drugs, don't usually have money as they don't usually have a steady, legitimate job. Because of that lack of income to buy their favorite party treat, they tend to violate other's personal freedoms, their personal property, in some cases, their lives to steal your property, your identity, your checking or credit cards in order to fund their habits. That is my major concern/issue with the whole argument of legalization.

---

I understand your concern but are those things not already illegal? I am sure there are plenty of users that do not steal or whatever other crime to obtain their drugs. Theft, child negligence, etc are already illegal are are done by many who do not use illegal drugs. Just because you choose to get high, drunk, whatever doesn't make it an excuse for your actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onedeadpirate

I understand your concern but are those things not already illegal? I am sure there are plenty of users that do not steal or whatever other crime to obtain their drugs. Theft, child negligence, etc are already illegal are are done by many who do not use illegal drugs. Just because you choose to get high, drunk, whatever doesn't make it an excuse for your actions.

---

I'm not discussing the pheripheral issues as being illegal. I'm discussing the pheripheral issues as being an offset to the original issue of drug use. I'm saying that drug use causes a lot of these pheripheral issues and without the drug use/abuse, a lot of the pheripheral issues wouldn't happen.