I agree...the drug war is an abject failure and we should end it immediately. Decriminalize and use forced rehab where appropriate. That being said, the honkys out in the burbs and not slaughtering each other as they do in SE D.C. I drive through there everyday...it is a combat zone and law enforcement should focus on the folks committing the violent crime because that does make the rest of us unsafe. When the whities start doing that, I will agree wholeheartedly.

Jim,

Did you ever consider that the slaughter is a direct result of prohibition? I guess they didn't teach alcohol prohibition history at your school. Pity.

BTW forced rehab won't work because addiction is a genetic disease.

Addiction Is A Genetic Disease

PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System

Simon,

You sound like a "root causes" "nobody is responsible for their own actions" kinda guy... People are violent--and addicted--because they choose to be so. Free will is one of God's many gifts to man...and women...

I gotta admit M. Simon, that was a non-sequitur.

While the violence might be from the prohibition, it's still more violent in the 'hood than in the 'burbs. Simply saying it's from prohibition isn't saying anything about it being more violent in da hood and the police acting accordingly.

And I'm with you on the whole war on (some) drugs thing, but I'm with Jim on that aspect.

Jim,

I guess you are right. Italians are a naturally violent alcoholics and there is no way to change it. Where ever they go violence follows.

We ended alcohol prohibition 75 years ago and Italians are still machine gunning each other. And you know the gang wars have been a feature of black neighborhoods since the 1890s.

I must have been asleep in school and forgotten all that history. If you could provide a link perhaps I could get up to speed on it because I sure missed it when I was in school.

And you know there were always gang wars over dope even when it was legal. There is another bit of history I missed. Got a link?

And you know I'm sure you are right. People doing the dope are not self medicating. Those folks at NIDA are just making stuff up.

I'd give some links to show you what I have learned but what would be the point? You wouldn't read them.

And same goes for you Veeshir.

Growing up in a war zone has no effect on people's attitudes towards violence.

Sorry M. Simon, your point just reinforces what I said.

Yes, them damn Italians rumrunners were very violent, and that's why the FBI focused on them so heavily. When it was Cubans after the Marianas boat lift, Florida cops focused on Cubans. When white-supremacists were attacking blacks in the 60s, the FBI focused on them.

Cops don't like violence, it makes taxpayers nervous so the police are going to focus more on where it's more violent, I don't understand why you think me or Jim saying that makes us jerks.

No matter the cause, drug dealers are more violent in the hood. That's just the way it is.

And I have to admit, I also missed Jim saying anything like thisI guess you are right. Italians(blacks in what Jim wrote I assume) are a naturally violent alcoholics and there is no way to change it. Where ever they go violence follows.

He said that it's more violent in the hood and that's just a fact.

Veeshir,

And you make my point. Within a few years of ending prohibition violence by Italians declined.

Why should ending the current prohibition regime be any different? Show your work.

Veeshir,

Let me make my point again: prohibition induced the violence. The Italian community was not any more violent than the typical poor/immigrant community until prohibition arrived.

In fact the chief factor in the violence seems to be the poverty of the community and the job opportunities available. You don't have to pass the HR screen to get a job as a drug runner.

I'd stop short of saying that legalizing drugs will end the violence in the black community. I don't know where you live, but the violence is often not about drugs or drug dealers.

Since that's the case, it makes the argument that a drug task force roundup is going to decrease violence a bit of a no-go also.

I do think that legalizing drugs is a major first step toward isolating the violent individuals in such a neighborhood. It would remove a significant amount of fuel that is currently feeding the fire.

Don't forget that another focus of law enforcement in the war on drugs is doctors and chronic pain patients. For example, my son suffered a closed head injury resulting in several physical disabilities. One of these is chronic, severe muscle spasms. Imagine a charlie horse that doesn't go away.

The drug that best deals with these for him is clonazepam. It's a benzodiazepine, (similar to xanax and valium) and it is difficult for him to find a doctor that will prescribe it for him on an ongoing basis because he might get addicted to it and they might get a visit from the DEA about their prescribing practices.

So, he lives with pain.

I have a friend who is an anesthesiologist. He and several of his friends decided that a clinic to treat people with intractable pain would be a service to the community. They opened a pain clinic. Though the bulk of their practice did not involve prescribing pills, the part that did became such a bureaucratic nightmare, they closed the practice.

One of our local non-profits had the bright idea of staffing their homeless shelters with off-duty cops. You might think that homeless people would avoid cops in uniform, but that wasn't a problem.

They trained these cops in how to deal with crazy people, how to tell when crazy people might actually be dangerous and how to deal with them without appearing threatening.

Why do I bring this up? Because most of those crazy people were also on drugs. The self-medicating part about illegal drug use is true. Over the past 10 years, several hundred local cops have been through this program. The shelters have good security and the cops have learned a valuable lesson in dealing with not only crazy people, but the sane in crazy situations.

I intensely hate and despise the woman who runs that non-profit (she's crazy and not on enough drugs), I must give her credit for this program. It's done the community much good, though not in a way that gets headlines. Those only happen when the crazy dude on drugs gets shot.

Bottom line is that I cannot think of anyone that the war on drugs helps. But I can sure think of a lot of people that it hurts.

Donna,

I lived next door to one of our town's biggest drug dealers (I had no idea). I woke up one morning and the apt. bldg I lived in was surrounded.

Next day the paper had an FBI agent quoted as saying that the murder rate in our town was going up because of the bust. Sure enough it did.

If we legalize will violence go to zero? No way. I'd be satisfied if it was the same kind of result we had with alcohol prohibition. Cut in half.

Did we get utopia from the end of alcohol prohibition? Heavens no. Did things get measurably better after a time? Hell yes.

Donna,

The protocol for admitting crazy people to a hospital includes asking about drug use. The nurse is quick to tell the relatives not to worry - it is self medication.

So the medical profession knows.

That part of the medical profession knows, but I don't think it's knowledge that is held by the entire medical profession, including primary care doctors.

What caused the violence is not what we were talking about, it's more violent in the hood so the cops focus more there.

Once again, as I said above, I'm not talking about the cause of the violence, just that it's there.

What's so wrong about that statement?

And you make my point. Within a few years of ending prohibition violence by Italians declined.

I know you said that because I read it and quoted it, but I am having a hard time believing that you actually meant to write what you wrote.

But if you do believe what you wrote then it demonstrates how clearly you do not get it.

The Italian mafia were engaging in illegal activities and along with illegal activities there is violence. They were engaged in liquor distribution during prohibition and switched to drugs when prohibition ended.

Now here's where your logic is missing. If drugs are magically decriminalized, do you think that the organized crime organizations will get jobs as Wal-Mart greeters?

You obviously think so, because that is what your statement means when applied in the real world.

It doesn't matter which activity they're engaged in, or if you think it should be legal or criminal. They are CRIMINAL organizations and will use violence to achieve their ends, and remain criminal, regardless of how many things you decriminalize to get them to reform. It won't go away if you take away the particular illegality du jour. They'll simply CHANGE what they're doing to something else.

Organized crime and criminals exist and they won't go away, or magically reform, if you make their current activity legal. They'll just change the product.

They're CRIMINALS and it doesn't matter if YOU think that selling drugs shouldn't be criminal. It is illegal (which is why we call them "Criminals"), and they know it is criminal, and are not at all bothered by that fact, or allow it to alter their behavior.

You can decriminalize drugs, prostitution, child porn, and even home robbery, and they'll STILL find something illegal to engage in to make their living, because they're CRIMINALS.

Veeshir,

I propose an experiment. How about violently enforcing the drug laws in white neighborhoods and let us see if violence ensues? We just need to get the white folks to not complain until the experiment is over. Say about ten years.

Fortunately the whole drug war is a bubble. The cops are running out of black folks to bust. They either have to start going after whites or the whole thing crashes. Of course if they go after whites the whole thing crashes.

And not to worry. It looks like things are heating up in Mexico and on the American border. The Mexican gangs are already beginning their "enforcement" of trade routes and deals in America.

The bubble is about to burst.

Connie,

I guess you have a point. The fact that the murder rate declined by half within a few years of the end of prohibition should not be taken into consideration.

And I get your other point. In these times of economic hardship look at all the jobs that would be lost if drugs are made legal.

I cal it Republican Socialism price supports for criminals and terrorists and the people who are "fighting" them. Everybody is happy.

And Connie why should you care? They are all making money. They are doing well - it isn't your son, it isn't your daughter getting beat and thrown in prison.

The deal is Connie - organized crime thrives on consensual crimes. Why? Because there is no complaining witness.

It has only taken 60 years for most of the Italians to go on to something better. Maybe we can do it a little faster this time.

In any case the whole model is breaking down because of Opium supporting the Taliban and the destruction of Mexico which is spilling into the US of A already. Not to mention that there are not enough black folks to support all the cops on the drug detail - not to mention the corruption of the police forces all over America.

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." - William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

I'm guessing that the fact that the drug cartels control American politics (so far relatively invisibly) doesn't worry you. It worries me.

BTW Connie,

I'm going to assume that you at least have a passing understanding of economics. So here goes:

If you subsidize CRIMINALS you get MORE of them. Republican Socialism at work.

Simon,

You've gone completely off the deep end. Your complaining about the birth certificate truthers in another thread, but you are not getting that you sound just like them when it comes to drug decriminalization. Everything is a great big conspiracy in the drug issue to you.

If you believe that decriminalizing drugs would be good for society, and benefit individuals, then make that case. Demonstrate how recreational drug use would benefit all of us. It is OK to have that belief (I don't share it, but that's simply a difference of opinion).

Your extraneous arguments relating to the reduction of crime are SPECIOUS. Out of one side of your mouth you're complaining about the violence of the drug war, but then go on to suggest that the violence of prohibition ended when prohibition ended. NO, IT DID NOT. It simply switched to violence in another criminal pursuit. Of course violence related to liquor declined when it became legal, but that's not because violence ended. It simply moved to another column in the criminal statistics database.

Let's just say you get your wish and the violence of drug war ended. Now they begin engaging in something, say, like Somalia piracy and kidnapping. Would you desire to make piracy legal to solve the violence problem? If "your son" was kidnapped and held at ransom by these criminals, would you make silly arguments that we shouldn't use violence against the criminals to use whatever means necessary to free their hostages?

And, no, my son and daughter are not going to be caught in the net, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT USE DRUGS or engage in any illegal activity because they're not idiots. They understand cause and effect--that engaging in illegal activities is dangerous, that complying with the law (even laws they might not agree with) are part and parcel of agreement to live in our society.

Here's another way to get your wish... drop a dime on every drug user you know about, like, actually, SHOW that you respect the rule of law. Turn them in as you would any other criminal, such as murderers, rapists, or thieves. And you know what? These "communities" you're so concerned about don't do THAT either. You condone that behavior when it comes to drugs. Do you condone the higher rates of murder and rape? We could reduce the prison population by making those acts legal, too.

If I ruled the world there would be National Guard troops on every street corner in these communities, because it is intolerable the way that innocents are caught up in this. No one should have to live that like, but until the people in those communities get that the way to solve it is to COMPLY WITH LAW and that law enforcement is not the enemy, nothing will change. That drug gangs terrorize these neighborhoods is beyond the pale, and that we don't have national guard troops protecting innocents, and shooting down these bastards is the real horror in all of this. I'm also not ignorant of the fact that if they didn't have drugs to sell illegally, it would be something else. The problem is not drugs, it is criminality.

I'm going to assume that you at least have a passing understanding of economics. So here goes:

If you subsidize CRIMINALS you get MORE of them. Republican Socialism at work.

I'm going to assume you have some knowledge of sociology: that which you condone or sanction, you get more of.

Support single mothers, you get more of them. Legalize abortion, you get more of them. Simplify divorce, you get more of it.

Whether you agree or disagree with each of those ideas doesn't matter. The facts don't change because you agree or disagree that it wasn't in the social reeingeering blueprint.

Connie,

If you think losing the war in Afghanistan and turning Mexico over to criminals is a good thing OK. Just say so. If you think turning America over to criminals is a good thing well just say so.

But tell you what - since you asked to get educated I'm going to fix you up:

The NIDA says Addiction Is A Genetic Disease

Here is how it works in America. The rich go to a doctor to get drugs with a certain effect. The poor buy from the gypsy drug store.

Class War

Recreational drug use? I don't think so. Treatment vs Recreation

Drugs fill receptors in the brain. If you get your receptor fillers from the medical cartel - no problem. If you buy them on the street or grow your own - well you know that what ever the government dishes out you have it coming to you.

Round Pegs In Round Holes

Our drug war is really a class war. The rich against the poor.

However, our drug war is unadulterated socialism. Price supports for criminals.

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

Schizophrenia and Tobacco

Who are the heroin users? Heroin

Who are the pot users? PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System

Here is a bit on Addiction or Self Medication?

More on Genetic Discrimination

You assume ignorance rather than accepting that others have come to a different opinion with the facts. You assume racism or bigotry, as well.

Of course poverty is involved! Poor people are poor because they're not as bright as the non-poor, and many have impulse control issues. That's WHY they're poor, too! A few generations of better food and education (or Darwin's help) and the problem will resolve itself.

If you were poor and miserable, escaping that with illegal drug use might be something you'd come to rely on, too.

This nannyism comes up all the time. People will say, "don't give money to alcoholic panhandlers... they'll just use the money to buy more booze." If I was homeless, I'd probably use it to buy booze, too. What else am I going to do with the money... put an addition on my cardboard box or remodel my bed roll? Drowning ones misery is what people do. But the solution is to remove the misery so they don't have to drown it out. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. That's just common sense!

You've claimed in this series that the Drug War was some new thing--that it had no precedent. Wrong. This is the second drug war. The first was successfully won (against opium distribution). What changed in this dynamic is airplanes and other means of rapid transport, that evades drug enforcement, as well as the methods of distribution. We didn't have any hesitation to use much more violent methods to end the trade routes. The argument could be made that we're not using ENOUGH violence, not that we're using too much. There were laws against the sale of recreational drugs locally, and in the various states. Laws against drugs are not some new thing. You focus on Federal laws as your comparison, but you leave out the local laws which were the more common practice of law-making 100 years ago (as well as the common practice of putting people who engaged in undesirable behavior outside the town's boundaries).

You also side with those who put forth the idea that this is racism. Every immigrant population that came to America had criminality issues when they first arrived. After several generations (generally 3), the problems were essentially ended. We no longer complain about the Irish or Italian problem, because they're no longer poor, living in disease infested tenaments... but there are always more where they came from (so we now have a Mexican or African problem and they'll be others once they've assimilated into American prosperity). It isn't because they're a minority or different racially, it is because they're new and poor immigrants.

We agree one on thing: it is a poverty issue. But we disagree on how to address that fact. Criminality is always higher in poor areas or with poor people. People with a stake don't take the same risks. People who have made a stake are better off to begin with, and that takes time, not the magic-wand of social reengineering schemes.

You make a causal connection to the reduction in crime after prohibition ended, but there were too many other dynamics that caused criminality to rise in that same period (the depression and a HUGE influx of new immigrants), ending when WWII began. Wars have a wonderful way of getting people to focus on things that matter, rather than their petty and selfish desires to engage in drug or alcohol use or other criminal activities, and the post WWII prosperity ended the "poor" problem for most of those people.

The role of genetics is specious. There is genetics involved in the make up of serial killers, too, but we don't allow genetics to trump the rule of law or let off genetic-based serial killers with that excuse. I'm not interested in engaging in Eugenics-style policy making where we invade the minds of criminals to determine if one is legitimate because "God made them that way" and punish others not similarly created. The laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of genetics.

It appears that you are basing your opinions on an ideal or theory, rather than facts. When Switzerland decriminalized drugs, all the bad things (that folks like myself remind people of) happened. Their drug problem got worse (and the number of people engaged in drug use climbed, as well as the associated criminal behaviors), not better, so they repealed the laws. Why would our outcome be different? Because we WANT a different outcome? Wanting or desiring a different outcome doesn't make it happen. That's insanity, and you know that definition.

When the Danes decriminalized pornography they got child porn and other darker-side pornography (bondage, masochism, etc.) to fill the no-longer-illicit gap (and each has been legalized in a continuance of the failed philosophy that decriminalizing it will solve the problem). Sometimes the status quo, however horrible it may be, IS better than tinkering with things... regardless of what libertine pet project you think will give people more "freedom."

Personally, I would legalize drugs tomorrow (if I was as short-sighted as you), but my motivations are different. I'd like to give people as much rope as they want, so they can self-eradicate, and allow Darwin a chance to play his reindeer games. But I know that the outcome wouldn't be as I would hope--that far too many innocents would be caught up in the crossfire and that people DO believe that "that which is legal is moral/good." It would simply switch the focus to something else. No, the only right approach/strategy is to help people improve their lives so they don't have to go to the neighborhood pusher to temporarily forget their misery.