Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

[Ridgerunner]

I have little clue where to buy moonshine in Milwaukee. Except for one half Puerto Rican on the South side I know. Other than that the corner stores (sell beer), liquor stores, lounges and bars corner the market. They’re on just about every corner.

And I don’t know about meth so I can’t speak to that. But crack cocaine if legalized would cost less than a single cigarette (which is about 35 cents each in a pack I believe). You have to add paper and other things to the tobacco product to make a cigarette. Crack is just cut with a razor blade and tied in a plastic bag after the cocaine is cooked up. In fact, when “droughts” hit the city from major police take downs or something, the price skyrockets by $2 to $5 bags selling for $10 bags.

If you made cigarettes illegal criminals could sell individual cigarettes for $10 a piece. Two cigarettes would cost a smoker $20 and 10 would cost a smoker $100.

And I doubt decriminalizing drugs is going to create a huge drug problem across the nation. Currently, it’s a bit tougher to get crack - and quality crack - in the City of Milwaukee. Not sure why. Consequently the quantity in a bag has dropped while prices remained same. But back in the mid 1990’s to about 2000 there were more distribution spots for crack on the North side of Milwaukee than there were distribution spots for alcohol. And we have stores and bars for alcohols just about every few blocks (sometimes on the same block). But with crack you could have 3 crack houses on one residential block, with some also standing on corners, with some also sitting in cars, with some also riding on bikes, with some also walking on foot. Just saturated.

But there’s not a lot of meth in Milwaukee, so, I know little about that stuff.

I don’t know anything about the economics of crack cocaine, so I can’t address that.

If cigarettes were criminalized, they wouldn’t cost $10/cigarette because tobacco is too easy to grow, cure and cut. There are lots of places in the U.S. where you could grow it in cheaply and in relative safety, just as is the case with marijuana. Illegal tobacco would be a big business, but there would probably be fewer people using it than now.

And meth is even cheaper than crack cocaine.

 

[po18guy]

Apparently, Portugal’s eleven year experience with decriminalization argues against that position.

Anecdotal results from an almost completely homogeneous society do not translate well to the heterogenous American society.

Also, it seems one reason the reefer referendum was defeated in California was because it was opposed by people who make their livings growing pot and by people who make their livings off pot growers.

Millions of growers? Really? Nonsense! Could it just be that common sense - even what little is left in California - told them this is just a bad idea?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Anecdotal results from an almost completely homogeneous society do not translate well to the heterogenous American society.

I’d consider Japan “an almost completely homogenous” society – Portugal, not so much.

In view of the fact that decriminalization has only been rarely tried anywhere, on what basis do you claim that it wouldn’t translate well here? In order to make a legitimate comparison, I would think you would need a much larger sampling size.

Millions of growers? Really? Nonsense! Could it just be that common sense - even what little is left in California - told them this is just a bad idea?

I wrote that it was “one reason”. Surely those growers and their economic dependents’ votes were counted in the final tally too.

Based on my experience, many of the people who I know who oppose the decriminalization of pot know almost nothing about pot or its users – the kind of people who rely on their memories of their arch-nemesis Mr Moonbeam from back in the 60s and who use the phrase “drug and alcohol abuse”, as if alcohol wasn’t also a drug.

 

[april32010]

I do not have to view someone’s agenda-driven and biased videos to object to something on principle. There are videos and many arguments in favor of abortion. Does that make abortion a good thing? Please explain how increasing the amount of illicit drug use accords with:

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

i’ll stay with Church teaching on this matter.

 

[po18guy]

i’ll stay with Church teaching on this matter.

This salient point seem to have almost entirely escaped notice. Thanks!

 

[CopticChristian]

There is a group of current and former law enforcement officers (police offiers, under cover police, police chiefs, judges, dea, etc), mostly former law enforcement (IMO because of the strong political pressure put on active law enforcement to not only tow the party line when it comes to drugs, but also their ‘education’ or what I would call indoctrination that formulates their belief system when it comes to the drug problem and how it sould be best addressed.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or www.leap.cc believe that the war on drugs is one of, if not the most, destructive social policy that exists in the USA today. Their website is listed in the former sentence. They have links to video’s where members are giving speaches, engaging in debates, as well as articles and other information that supports their belief that the policy of drug prohibtion creates crime and violence and does not reduce drug abuse/addiction. Anyone can join LEAP, but only current or former Law Enforcement are allowed to do public speaking on behalf of their organization.

I have watched some of their videos and also researched some other countries approach to the drug problem and find their arguments compelling. Again, they do not maintain that ending drug prohibition would address the countries drug problem, they contend that the policy of drug prohibtion in the USA CREATES crime and violence, and that by ending drug prohibtion crime and violence would diminish and we as a nation would be in a much better position to actually address the countries drug problem in a way that would be effective, while maintaining that the ‘war on drugs’ is not at all effective in reducing drug use while at the same time creating crime and violence.

I find it very interesting, and very compelling that a group of current and former law enforcement officers would create and sustain an organization that advocates ending the war on drugs, and argues their postion, IMO, effectively.

Has anyone here heard of this organization before? Is anyone here willing to watch video’s on their website that support their views and discuss them?

They also advertize the speaking engagements that one or more of their members are booked for so if anyone is interested in hearing one of them speak live they can look up their booked events on their website.

Personally I hope that this oganization continues to grow and continues to impact the views of US citizens as I am a former drug and alchol counselor and IMO having drugs illegal does not effectively keep people from using drugs if they want to use them, but it does create a tremendous financial burden on taxpayers while not reducng drug use or access to drugs. It also breaks apart families and is responsible for the murder of thousands and thousands of people, including polie officers. Aside from this being horrible in and of itself, it also leaves thousands and thousands of children without parents.

If you choose to participate in this thread I ask that you reference material from this organizations website and then state your comments about their postion/views/etc.

This is a thread to discuss the organization LEAP and their impact on social justice, not a thread for poeple to regurgitate their previously head beliefs on the war on drugs or drug use.

It should be obvious, but I will state it, that LEAP does not condone or support drug use. They simply believe that the current approach, the so called ‘war on drugs’ is a failure, and a very costly one at that, on different levels.

So please do not get confused and think that they, or I, are in favor of drug use. I’m hoping that this thread can be positive and productive in exploring the potential merits of the postion of these current and former Law Enforcement Officers.

God Bless,
Bill

Bill,

This nonsense started with the Harrison act…

forces.org/articles/files/whiteb/white03.htm

druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu8.html

The process was Federal Law forced on the States and the move to decriminalize Marijuana is the first step in the State refusing to inforce Federal Laws forced on the States. It is the process in reverse of the Harrison act forced on the States.

The criminalizing of drug use is rediculous. People will use drugs with or with out laws. People drink with and without laws. Decriminalizing drug use would save money and save lives.

 

[po18guy]

The criminalizing of -]drug use/-] (robbery) is rediculous. People will -]use drugs/-] (rob) with or with out laws. People drink with and without laws. Decriminalizing -]drug use/-] (robbery) would save money and save lives.

Explain the difference.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Explain the difference.

Robbery directly harms another person. Drug use, drinking, smoking, and eating at Burger King all harm the person doing it. This is why robbery should be illegal and the other stuff should not, even if banning either will not stop people from doing them.

 

[CopticChristian]

Explain the difference.

Po,

I believe tha the question has been answered…self vs other. I imagine that this is not the point of your question.

What is it you believe concerning drug use?

 

[CopticChristian]

Call a drug rehab center after reading this:

drug-rehabs.com/marijuana.htm

I’m sure they’d be glad to inform you about what actually happens while respecting patient confidentiality.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

I find this site to be biased based on that fact that it is promoting “treatment”. Treatment implies disease and that word implies 12 steps and the disease model. If you click on Alcohol Rehab on the left you will see it is oriented towards 12 steps/disease model of AA, declared to be a religion.

If you click on Cocaine Rehab there you will find alternatives that are just as available for Alcohol yet not incorporated into Alcohol Rehab, thus indicating a 12 step/AA disease model, religion of AA bias.

This site, whatever it touts, is touting something that draws people to the notion of treatment. The public has been brainwashed into believing that addiction is a disease and it is not. I suggest you read “Diseasing of America” for a balanced view.

 

[TimeEntrance]

If cigarettes were criminalized, they wouldn’t cost $10/cigarette because tobacco is too easy to grow, cure and cut. There are lots of places in the U.S. where you could grow it in cheaply and in relative safety, just as is the case with marijuana. Illegal tobacco would be a big business, but there would probably be fewer people using it than now.

You might have a point with that. Nonetheless, bags of tobacco for roll-up cigarettes can be bought in stores, yet, a lot of people still purchase the ready-made brand name cigarettes.

I’m not a cigarette smoker myself but I’ve always told myself I should packs of cigarettes and sell them as individual cigarettes. A friend of mine that smokes used to do this frequently. I think cigarettes are roughly 35 cents each in a pack but I think the going rate on the streets is 50 cents.

Maybe $10 is to high a price before many would turn to roll-ups or planting their own tobacco (but then if illegal that might even be illegal). I’ve no doubt that with a drought of cigarettes and if illegal you could sell individual cigarettes for $1 or $2 or maybe $3 a piece.

Marijuana has a market on the street and the illegal distributors of marijuana make sizable profits. I see little evidence that most marijuana is not bought in “nickle bags” and in other quantities but rather that most marijuana is consumed by smokers who rely strictly off their own home grown plants.

And meth is even cheaper than crack cocaine.

I don’t know anything about meth. But the questions arises in my mind if things are the way you portray them then (1) is meth made buy legal products a person can buy in stores? And (2) how is the meth business profitable if it’s illegality would essentially make the vast majority of meth users make their own drug for personal consumption?

 

[po18guy]

Robbery directly harms another person. Drug use, drinking, smoking, and eating at Burger King all harm the person doing it. This is why robbery should be illegal and the other stuff should not, even if banning either will not stop people from doing them.

Three decades in law enforcement taught me differently. Never saw anyone shot or stabbed in a robbery, but I surely saw much physical, spiritual and family damage through drug use. And, we are not speaking of OD deaths.

 

[po18guy]

Po,

I believe tha the question has been answered…self vs other. I imagine that this is not the point of your question.

What is it you believe concerning drug use?

I have posted it. What the catechism teaches.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Po, I agree illegal drug use (marijuana excepted) more often than not harms families.

I also would agree legal alcohol consumption has a history and presence in the same.

Interesting enough Alcoholics Anonymous was created in the predominately Christian world and not the Islamic World. What do you think of Islamic prohibition on alcohol compared to the Catholic world?

Alcoholicism is of course treated less as a criminal issue today than a medical issue. Of course, if an alcoholic is drunk and hits someone while driving his car, or robs a small store while intoxicated, his alcoholism has not only caused him legal problems but will result in criminal prosecution in the courts and possible jail or prison time.

Criminal organizations are generally involved in, well, criminal behaviors and occupations. If alcohol was made illegal there is no reason to think criminal organizations would not find a niche in providing alcohol to those that want it. To this extent the U.S. and Mexican Governments are the Sinola Cartel or Al Capone’s Chicago. (So it probably came as no surprise that it took the U.S. Government to take down Capone because local law enforcement were incapable of doing so)

Drug users are not the Sinola Cartel and Catholics were not Al Capone’s Chicago. True, Catholics do drink wine even though wine has caused winos.

 

[ringil]

I find the subject of decriminalization of drugs as so fascinating.

You get support from the Left, Right, and Center. You also get vehement opposition from the Right, Left, and Center.

It’s just strange how this subject is played out and the strange bedfellows who are created.

I, personally support the de-criminalization of Marijuana but do not see this happening any time soon. I do not support the decriminalization of hard drugs. If it ever does I feel it would be a GOP president as a Dem wouldn’t want to be known as the “dopehead-president”.

America just doesn’t seem ready for it, sad really.

I know that if one is caught with less than an oz. of marijuana in MA they get a $100 ticket. I would think that would be funny to see.

 

[po18guy]

I have posted it. What the catechism teaches.

** 2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.**

It is an observable, repeatable, and measureable aspect of human behavior that, as the costs of participating in a given endeavor are decreased, human participation in it will increase. We must not make the mistake of assuming that there are only monetary costs involved here. As an example, one can cite the social taboos against cohabitation and unmarried pregnancy, both of which have pretty much dissolved. You will kindly note that there has been a concomitant increase in both activities. The penalties for illicit drug use and sales have dropped measurably over the past 4 or 5 decades. As a natural consequence, drug use and sales have increased. This behavior also has its associated monetary costs that is entirely separate from the enforcement of laws in contra…

And, for those who seem to think that “treatment” offers some sort of societal panacea, note that there must first be a life which is out of control (perhaps for years) due to drug use before treatment is required. If that person lived in a societal vacuum, one could argue that no one else was affected. Yet, the illicit drug user must also purchase the drug from someone who is violating the law, and that person must either manufacture the drug, or obtain it from someone else who is also violating the law. The purpose of penalties for any given human behavior is primarily to punish transgressions of that law, but also to allow the rational mind to ponder, ahead of time, the cost of violating the law.

Would we have more homicide if it was decriminalized? Who could possibly argue in the negative? It is inarguable that we would eventually have a much more polite society for those few who were left. But, who would want to pay this sort of cost?

 

[po18guy]

I know that if one is caught with less than an oz. of marijuana in MA they get a $100 ticket. I would think that would be funny to see.

A battered woman fearing a violent ex-husband, and who carries an unregistered gun, faces a mandatory year in jail under the Bartley-Fox law. So much for justice in Massachusetts.

 

[ringil]

A battered woman fearing a violent ex-husband, and who carries an unregistered gun, faces a mandatory year in jail under the Bartley-Fox law. So much for justice in Massachusetts.

That’s certainly a problem. The woman’s gun should have been registered though. You can’t mess with that sort of thing.

Marijuana is next to harmless however.

 

[po18guy]

That’s certainly a problem. The woman’s gun should have been registered though. You can’t mess with that sort of thing.

Marijuana is next to harmless however.

Harmless, huh?

 

[CopticChristian]

Harmless, huh?

Po,

From the Truth About Addiction…

Can You Really Quit Drugs?

Although many people claim to see all addictions in a similar light, others find it hard to believe that real drug addicts can quit. They think drugs must be the exception to the rule, due to the chemical hold drugs have on users. Indeed, the arguments of the NIDA and ads by the Partnership for a Drug Free America© convey the idea that even a brief flirtation with drugs sends the user off on a one-way trip that cannot be reversed.

Nothing is farther from the truth. As usual, it is the government’s own data that tell us that at some point most drug users decide that they have had enough. Consider the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, conducted periodically by several agencies of the U.S. government (including the NIDA). This survey reveals that although many Americans have at one point or another used drugs, few of them progress to becoming heavy users or addicts. Very few continue to use drugs over a long period of time.

According to the 2002 survey, 46 percent of all Americans over age twelve have tried an illicit substance. However, only 15 percent have used one in the past year, and only 8 percent have used in the past month. The survey does not even report weekly or daily use of most substances, because the percentages are simply too microscopic.6

Consider the statistics on marijuana use. Forty percent of Americans have at some point used the drug—but only 6 percent have used it in the last month. More than 14 percent of Americans have tried cocaine, but fewer than 1 percent have used it within the last month. And about 1.5 percent of Americans have ever used heroin, but just one-tenth of 1 percent have used it within the past month.

In other words, of all people who have ever used cocaine or heroin, fewer than 10 percent of ever-users continue to use the drug currently (the same holds for crack cocaine). The idea that if you (or your child) ever try a drug you will soon become addicted is a myth—a very popular one, but a myth nonetheless. If this program were only directed to those who are addicted to or even currently use the most potent illicit drugs, there would be little audience for it. Remember, only one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans—one in a thousand—currently use heroin, and less than 1 percent currently use cocaine (including crack).

According to the National Survey, 3 percent of Americans abused or were dependent on any illicit drug (out of over 46 percent who have ever taken an illicit drug). But the majority of these abused marijuana. In 2003, when the 2002 data were released, what had formerly been the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse changed its name to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The term “drug use” provides a far more accurate picture of the data.

Since marijuana is the most commonly used drug, there are more people abusing marijuana than other drugs. Many debate whether people can be genuinely addicted to marijuana. Of course, from the perspective of this program—that becoming addicted means being involved in an engrossing experience that diminishes a person’s ability to focus on and cope with other parts of life—the answer is yes, marijuana can be addictive. According to the 2002 National Survey, those abusing or addicted to marijuana represented 1.8 percent of Americans (60 percent of those who depended on or abused any illicit drug).7 Yet we must always keep in mind, as with other illicit drugs, that most of those who have ever used or abused marijuana have ceased or control the habit