Drug Dealers and Drug Traffic

[MaryAnn]

Ok, first I want to define the situation as I see it:

Marijuana and cocaine and heroin and other drugs are illegal. Most didn't used to be (Coca-Cola originally had cocaine in it.)

Now history:

We went through Prohibition, and what happened was a huge underground/black market full of criminals (and people who did not think of themselves as criminals who wanted to buy the alcoholic products.) Home-made brews that contained methanol blinded a lot of people.

So, we re-legalized alcohol and taxed it. Alcohol is still a problem in society but does not have the criminal element involved for sale and distribution, except perhaps for underage drinkers, but they don't usually have to involve the Mafia to buy a six pack.

And today's scenario:

Here in southern AZ, we have an incredible problem with border crossers. I'll stay away from the illegal people transporters because that is a different topic. If you want to go camping in southern AZ, you better be REALLY careful where you do it, because if you camp in the more remote regions you might run across, or be run across, by people transporting drugs across the desert. You can get killed for simply seeing them.

The higher the profit margin, and the more dangerous the undertaking, the badder the people are who get involved in the trade. Killing is common; Dylan's encounter was with the kind of people who are typical, not unusual, in the drug trade.

So here is why I want to see drugs put in the same category as alcohol: to get the criminal element out of it. All the billions of dollars we have spent, and are spending, on the drug war are not working; the trade has not lessened, only gotten more dangerous with more dangerous people involved in it. If we legalize drugs, we just blow the bottom out of the entire criminal element involved in the drug trade. We can spend all of the "drug war dollars" on education and prevention and treatment, just like we do with alcohol.

And another opinion: I think there is a "drug war industry" that does NOT want the drug war to stop; they'd lose their incomes. It wouldn't surprise me if the criminal element also does NOT want drugs legalized, because THEY would also lose their incomes, which are HUGE.

One final comment: if you participate in illegal drugs by buying a bit of the smoke, you are also a participant in all the murders and other activity that goes on to get those drugs on the street. Think about that next time you buy (not accusing ANYONE on this board of buying or using drugs, but I bet some of you know some people who do, and this POV is one that needs to be disseminated.)

That's my soap box for today. Let the commentary roll.

MA

[Tubaryan12]

concur

Yeah,... what he said

[TexTuba]

You're right. My only thing is that alcohol is bad enough to be under the influence of in public. But what if alot of people were under the influence of some of these drugs? They say drink in moderation but I don't think that many of these drugs can even be done in small doses and still not incapacitate you. I like what you say but there's just sooooooo many drugs that screw with the body in so many different ways it's silly. With alcohol you basically know the result of drinking too much. I don't know where I'm going with this so Ima stop.....



Ralph

[Lew]

Absolutely on target. I wonder when our self righteous right wing politicians will realize the harm they are doing by "protecting" us from drugs? In the oppressive political climate in the country today it will be a long time before your very reasonable and accurate perspective can even be discussed in any legislative body.

[funkcicle]

Good post, I agree almost 100%

One final comment: if you participate in illegal drugs by buying a bit of the smoke, you are also a participant in all the murders and other activity that goes on to get those drugs on the street. Think about that next time you buy

..i did say almost This rationale gets thrown around a lot and I'm not so sure I buy it. Mostly I have a hard time accepting any statement that backs one side of a black/white argument, which I think this pretty much does. We don't hear a whole lot about witness-murders and gang executions in the pot fields of Canada, but the DEA made a bold statement last year that something like 80% of pot imported to the united states originates in Canada(I call b.s. on that one, but that's another thread!). Problem with that is the public has a more difficult time associating Canadians with the crimes that the government wants you to associate with such <i>immoral pracitces</i>. Good thing our neighbour to the south doesn't have as good a reputation, and speaks a different language.

Not to say that there isn't some truth to that statement, or even it's not true MORE than it's false... it's just simply not as simple as that in my eyes.. I can't see much reason to consider it anything other than propaganda.

fwiw

[Joe Baker]

But Funk, how 'bout the murders that happen right here in the U.S.? Drive-by shootings and turf wars -- I don't care so much if they kill each other, but all too often some innocent person gets in the way. And don't forget the junkies that will steal -- and kill if necessary -- to get their next fix. A staggering percentage of both violent and property crime in this country is committed by people who are abusing drugs. Which is exactly why I'm perplexed about this whole drug-legalization issue. Does the actual use of drugs cause the criminal behavior, or their relative unavailability and commensurate high price? If I could only answer that question, then I'd know my answer to MAs question. When I look at super-rich guys -- pro athletes, for example -- I see that their megabucks don't seem to keep them from criminal behavior. Thus it's hard for me to believe that it is only the high price that turns drug users criminal. But I am still extremely ambivalent on this one.

Convince me that it's only the price that causes the other crime, and I'll lead the charge.
________________________________
Joe Baker, whose brother was killed 22 years ago this month by a junkie who had just robbed a drug store.

[Lew]

...Marijuana, like alcohol, is very harmful. Marijuana is harmful enough that the govt. thinks it should be illegal.

...

I don't care, on a personal level, what someone does, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. The problem is that people under the influence of drugs and alcohol cannot guarantee that their actions won't affect anyone else - they are not in a state of mind that allows for clear thinking. That is an undeniable fact. That's why I rarely, if ever, drink alcohol anymore (it also costs too damned much). I'm not a teetotaler or a prude, but I have to be accountable for my actions (as do everyone else), and getting high or sh*tfaced doesn't allow me (or anyone else) to do that.

... Why not let everybody else do whatever they want without repercussion? We don't need laws or order. And to think our founding fathers had a philosophy for this country based on morals, ethics, right, and wrong. I guess if you cry loud enough and throw a big enough fit, you eventually get your way, right or wrong. That mentality has led to the culture/societal atmosphere we are currently "enjoying". Let's be more forward thinking like Europe. Seen Europe and the UN lately? Perfect example why our founding fathers got the hell out of there. Legalization of drugs is just one aspect of our hedonistic, un-Godly, selfish, immediate-gratification, feel-good society. Narcissus would be proud, indeed. The devil himself would be proud. He is, no doubt. God help us all.

Doc

So much to comment on. The question isn't whether drugs are harmful. The question is what is the best way to protect society. I believe that more crime and harm is created by having drugs illegal than would be if they were legal. I don't use any drugs (other than the occassional Advil) and rarely drink alchohol, so I don't have a vested interest.

Nobody is saying that having drugs legal will reduce the number of addicts. What I am saying is that we should punish people for doing harmful things while using drugs, just as we do with people who abuse alchohol. Addressing the supply side hasn't worked. It creates financial incentive for murder and mayhem. Prohibition should have taught us this much. Look at the death that happened during prohibition because of bootleggers and the financial incentive they had to flaunt the law.

Of course people should be responsible for their actions. If someone chooses to be a pothead and can't keep a job, that should be their problem. If they hurt someone else as a result, they should receive the appropriate penalty. If they choose to smoke crack that's their probelem, until it infringes on the rights or security of someone else. We should make it very clear, that if you do anything inappropriate while under the influence of any mind altering substance, be it alchohol or other drugs, you will suffer consequences.

Nothing we do will guarantee that people won't go out and hurt other people. To try to do so will result in an oppressive society. If we stopped trying to impact supply, and addressed the actions of those who may be using drugs, crime will go down, and there would be plenty of money to provide treatment, or confinement to those who can't control their actions.

You seem to be saying that because you views drugs as immoral, to legalize them would be wrong. Your argument seems to be that legalizing drugs is just another step in the collapse of our society. Do you really believe that the billions of dollars spent trying to prevent drugs from reaching people who want them is better? Is it more moral to create an environment that creates incentive to kill people to protect the profits that can be gained merely because of the risk that exists because drugs are illegal? I think that our society is in more danger from the impact of the drug war than it ever would be from legalizing drugs.

[Mark]

You know, no matter what we do, there are still going to be murders. We've made murder against the law and that has only driven murderers underground. No matter what the penalty, people are still going to commit murder. So, why don't we leagalize murder and charge a murder tax. At least that way the government will actually be able to make some money off murder and could even use some of that money for rehabilitation programs for serial murders.

[Chuck(G)]

Prohibition was a strange, contorted experiement.

Initially, the Volstead Act was passed as part of a wartime effort by the Anti-Saloon League to pass various federal prohibitory laws as part of the war effort, either to protect the morals of servicemen or to conserve grain for nutritional purposes.

By 1919, 26 states had prohibition laws on the books. Woodrow Willson vetoed the Volstead Act, but it was passed over his veto. Which shows you that the intelligence of our legislators hasn't improved much with time, nor has the political influence of evangelicals decreased much, it seems.

Similarly, control of Marijuana began with the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937", which was passed ostensibly as a revenue-raising venture for the federal government. Basically, it provided that sellers and producers of marijuana needed to obtain a Federal tax stamp costing between one and three dollars per year (depending on one's business relationship to the weed).

If you read down the act, however, you begin to smell a rat:

SEC. 12. Any person who is convicted of a violation of any provision of this Act shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court

For not paying a buck a year? Clearly, the Congress had in mind suspending the issuance of tax stamps for marijuana, which, like suspending the issuance of tobacco or alcohol stamps today, would render the substances illegal. Neat bit of legislative chicanery, eh?
---------------

There is some nasty stuff out there--Oregon is one of the top producers of meth, simply because there's a lot of open space out here. So you can't buy a package of Sudafed off the shelf--it's kept behind the counter and you have to show ID and sign for it. "Aisle 5" my foot!

And yet, a meth zombie is a very dangerous person and not someone I'd want walking the streets.

We supplement our senior dogs' diet iwth Methyl Sulfonyl Methane (MSM); it seems to help keep their joints limber. Horse people use it a lot and claim it works wonders on an old horse.

The other day, I noticed that we were running low, so I went down to the local farm and feed store to get some more. No longer on the shelf in 40 lb. buckets, I found that I had to fill out an FBI form, show driver's license and vehicle registration to get some (forget sales price, BTW--regulation now ensures full list price).

It turns out that MSM is being used by "meth cooks". So we all suffer.
-------------
Instead of interdicting drugs and wholesale imprisonment, we've need to find something that's more cost-effective and addresses the problems of drug addiction directly, don't you think?

[Tubaryan12]

Nothing we do will guarantee that people won't go out and hurt other people. To try to do so will result in an oppressive society. If we stopped trying to impact supply, and addressed the actions of those who may be using drugs, crime will go down, and there would be plenty of money to provide treatment, or confinement to those who can't control their actions.

save the comment about "oppressive society*" this comment is dead on right. When you remove the sellers from the whole "crime and punishment" equation it leave a lot of space in jails for the abusers. Prohibition: shoot outs in the streets. End prohibition and add a revenue enhancing element for the government: a nice fat stream of cash for government to use for whatever it wants.

We all need to remember one thing.....just because there is a supply doesn't mean there will be a demand. The problem is the demand. Just because there is use doesn't mean there will always be abuse. Just like with alcohol, we need to get heavier on the abuser, not the seller. I haven't heard of any drive-by shooting over bar turf lately.

*only because this is oppinion...one persons oppression is another persons stability

[Lew]

You know, no matter what we do, there are still going to be murders. We've made murder against the law and that has only driven murderers underground. No matter what the penalty, people are still going to commit murder. So, why don't we leagalize murder and charge a murder tax. At least that way the government will actually be able to make some money off murder and could even use some of that money for rehabilitation programs for serial murders.

The difference is murderers are hurting someone else, drug abusers are hurting themselves. If a drug abuser becomes a murderer, they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

The other difference is that we punish murderers, but not the people who sell the guns or knives or whatever they use to commit their crime (I know, I know, you don't need a weapon, but I'm making a point, as were you). Making drugs illegal is analogous to making guns illegal in your example. We should focus on the actions of the people involved, not on controling a substance. Murder is outlawing a human (or sub-human) act. With drugs, we should punish actions that result from people taking drugs, not possession.

[Jonathan Fowler]

I believe that the catch with the "Marijuana Act" from 1937 that was discussed was that the stamp (1 or 3 dollars) could be obtained, but the gov't was in charge of the dispensation of said stamps. These stamps were never intended to be issued. This was the way that they first began to outlaw illegal drugs, not control them.
It was never intended to be an active law, just a way to start gaining control of the market, which at that time was out of hand.

It wasn't just bootleg gin that made the '20s roar.

[Mark]

The difference is murderers are hurting someone else, drug abusers are hurting themselves.

If you think that a drug abuser is only hurting him- or herself, then you have not had much experience with drug abusers.

[Dylan King]

Some very thoughtful comments my fellow tubenet friends. So much to think about...

This country was founded by some of the best hemp farmers the world has ever seen. George Washington wrote in his journal about how pleased he was with Martha that she would save the biggest and finest buds for his return to the plantation. I wonder what he was planning on doing with those?

A few of you mentioned that alcohol is a "bad" thing. I would look a little deeper into that. The Bible clearly states that alcohol is a gift from God, and is to be used. But what it also stated is that it should be used in moderation. We have all heard the studies that say that a little red wine or dark beer is good for our health. It is drunkenness that is forbidden by our Father in heaven, not the use of alcohol. Water to wine was Jesus' first recorded miracle in John. We remember Him by drinking wine at Passover. For those who study the Bible regulary, a regular drink from time to time is a blessing, and is as natural as a good steak. Of course, eating two, three, or four good steaks can get one into trouble, so we must be aware of our tolerances and stay away from drunkeness at all costs. It can be mighty dangerous if abused.

Now. I have thought long and hard about the criminalization of drugs in America, and the rest of the world, where most of earth’s countries have followed suit. Before there were drug laws there weren't drive by shootings, crack babies, rock star heroin overdoses, the list goes on and on...

So why is it that they are illegal, and our prisons are so full of drug violators? Money and power in government is your answer, because as many of you know, the great deceiver corrupts all governments of this world, including our own. Satan the devil, that serpent of old is the REAL inventor of the black market in this world.

These corrupt governments depend on the black market to remain afloat, and I assume that is why drugs remain, and always will remain illegal, as long as human beings are in charge. So much industry benefits from drugs being illegal, and those funds pour directly into the politician’s pocketbooks. The funds also go to fund illegal government activity like secret operations worldwide and the alien conspiracy. The alcohol, paper, pharmaceutical, oil, soft drink, coffee, tobacco, automotive, healthcare, etc… benefit from drugs being illegal. There is no end in sight for the lies that have been filling the ears of Americans and the world regarding the “drugâ€

[Shockwave]

"One candidate has a plan to do the unthinkable....to legalize drugs. Senator John Doe wants to make it easier for himself to obtain dangerous drugs and at the same time put hundreds of thousands of dangerous criminals back on the streets. Studies show that 99% of rape, robbery and violent crime is perpetrated by people involved with drugs, so send a message that you want these dangerous criminals behind bars where they belong, not out on the street raping, murdering, and stealing."
:cut to scene of cute little kids crossing the street while filthy, menacing men glare at them from beside a fence:


-Eric

[Leland]

Marijuana's an odd case, though.

From what I've understood, it wasn't made illegal to promote general health. The polymer industry was just getting underway, and companies with a lot at stake decided to play a little dirty and get rid of the only real competition they had, which was hemp.

There are "industrial" varieties of the marijuana plant that have insignificant amounts of THC, which means that smoking it wouldn't make you any more high than smoking lawn clippings. But, the plant fibers can still be made into very good fabric and paper, and are much more environmentally friendly than wood pulp, oil, and even more efficient than cotton.

Rather than make the distinction between industrial hemp and intoxicating marijuana, they decided to criminalize the whole range of plants, which made room in the market for Dacron, polyester, nylon, and every other synthetic fabric.

http://www.openflix.com/movie/reefer-madness.html
http://www.killermovies.com/dvd/do.php/ ... YTQ__.html
http://www.1000misspenthours.com/review ... adness.htm
Especially:
http://www.onlinepot.org/legal/untold1.htm

I really don't think that marijuana should be categorized as if it were any other mind-altering drug. Many studies indicate that it's less addictive & dangerous than alcohol and nearly every other illegal drug. And, as an industrial plant, it's a better option than many modern materials.

[Captain Sousie]

Absolutely on target. I wonder when our self righteous right wing politicians will realize the harm they are doing by "protecting" us from drugs? In the oppressive political climate in the country today it will be a long time before your very reasonable and accurate perspective can even be discussed in any legislative body.

Or, when will the left wing zealots (to trade insults just as well) stop "protecting" everyone from the evil cigarette when a single marijuana joint (the drug of choice for those pushing legalization because it is so 'harmless') contains more tar, more nicotine and more carcinogens than 3 or more cigarettes? You want to tell me that the secondhand smoke will be any better? How about protecting the ones around you from getting a contact high? Yes, the right wing tends to do stupid stuff, but is the left wing any better?

Also, want to talk about oppressive societies? Try a few of the current ones out there China, for example.

If you want to see what drugs will do to a society, go to Amsterdam, there is more petty thievery, more con games, more violence than anywhere else in Europe, even the Czech Republic. Not to mention the dog crap everywhere and the aweful smell of the place, Rome smelled better.

Rant ended,
Sou

[funkcicle]

If you want to see what drugs will do to a society, go to Amsterdam, there is more petty thievery, more con games, more violence than anywhere else in Europe, even the Czech Republic.

Dunno about that.. could you cite some sources on that info? Here are some statistics with cited sources:

Murder rate as a percentage of population (in 1996):
1.8 per 100,000 in the Netherlands;
8.22 in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Bureau of Statistics; White House Office of National Drug Control Policy)

Incarceration rate as a percentage of population (1997):
73 per 100,000 in the Netherlands;
645 per 100,000 in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Ministry of Justice; White House Office of National Drug Control Strategy)

Crime-related deaths as a percentage of population:
1.2 per 100,000 in the Netherlands (1994);
8.2 per 100,000 in the U.S. (1995).
(Sources: World Health Organization; Uniform Crime Reports, U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation)

http://www.drugtext.org/count/nl1.html f.w.i.w.

[Captain Sousie]

My only source so far is myself and many other travelers that I have met and talked to. But I'll play it your way.

If you notice however, I did not list murder and death among the problems in Amsterdam specifically. Your sources also only listed the US and not anything of Europe outside of the Netherlands. As my comments were restricted to Europe, and not the US, it seems that we are both plagued with misinformation.

For a little bit of crime rate info from as far back as 1995, try this diagram. With sources.

Crimes per 100 respondents 1995 (Source: International Crime Victims Survey)


and now for the increase over the previous 45 years



These are from the Crime Prevention Information & News article on the website for the University of West England. Here http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/commsafe/eusor3.asp

Now that you have relevant information on the topic, maybe we can both look for current info hmmm?

By the way, the incarceraion rate means precisely diddley. The US police tends to enforce rather stringently (not that it is a bad thing.) and the Amsterdam cops are pretty easy going. No crime that occured in Amsterdam that I have ever personally discussed has resulted in prison time of any kind. Not even the drunk tank. Also, think about the fact that the crime rates in the netherlands are exclusive of many kinds of drug related offenses (due to some drugs being completely legal) that the other countries must report.

Sou

By the way, have you ever been to Amsterdam?

[Chuck(G)]

There are "industrial" varieties of the marijuana plant that have insignificant amounts of THC, which means that smoking it wouldn't make you any more high than smoking lawn clippings. But, the plant fibers can still be made into very good fabric and paper, and are much more environmentally friendly than wood pulp, oil, and even more efficient than cotton..

Most one-time midwestern farm boys over 40 probably remember smokin' the stuff that used to grow in roadside ditches. Just once was enough to get you sick enough to never want to try it again.

During WWII, the gummint encouraged the growing of hemp for rope for the wartime effort. And there was plenty of escaped stuff. But no one in their right mind (other than silly schoolboys) would think of smoking that stuff, any more than you'd want to smoke your old gym socks. But it's still illegal to smoke the stuff, even if you pick it out of a roadside ditch.

...and there are still those who come to the Northwest in the autumn to pick the "funny" mushrooms. I think the local law enforcement agencies just hope they get the right ones--liver transplants are expensive.

Switzerland has a state-run program to supply heroin to the really hard-core addicts. It keeps the spread of HIV and property and sex crimes down. Most heroin addicts are quite functional on a maintenance dose, and can hold regular jobs.