|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 10 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.JohnAlbanese
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | The Current Policies Do Not Work
The current policies mainly try to limit the supply of drugs. It attempts to do this in two ways: interdiction and incarceration. | |
<
< | Confiscation and Interdiction are Ineffective | >
> | Confiscation and Eradication are Ineffective | | | Interdiction is the use of police or military force to try to limit the supply of drugs before they are brought into the country. The drugs are either confiscated in transit or eradicated at the source. Confiscating drugs is largely ineffective. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates at most law enforcement is able to seize only thirty-eight percent of cocaine that enters the United States. Despite these seizures, the price of cocaine has decreased and the quality has increased since 1980.
Eradication is equally useless. The United States gives hundred of millions of dollars in aid each year to foreign governments to try to eradicate the production of drugs. Eradication generally involves the spraying of toxic chemicals over vast swaths of farmland. Perhaps the most glaring example of the ineffectiveness of eradication is poppy production in Afghanistan. Although the country has been occupied by the United States for nearly a decade, poppy production is at high levels. Recently, the United States gave up on its eradication efforts to focus on alternative methods. | | | Contrary to popular belief, legalization will not necessarily lead to an increase in use. Portugal, while not legalizing, has decriminalized drug use since 2001. Many at the time feared that drug use would increase, especially among children. This has not happened. The use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and ecstacy among youth has actually fallen. This policy has allowed the Portugese government to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment for drug use.
Conclusion | |
<
< | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate millions of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate. | >
> | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate. | | |
| |
<
< | Why stop at drugs?
-- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010
Derek, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay.
-- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010
Read my paper  -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010
What bothers me more are the widespread misconceptions about drugs. MDMA, for example, during its DEA scheduling was recommended for Schedule III. Any doctor who knew anything about the drug said it had medicinal value. It had been used by psychotherapists with extraordinary success, some even calling it a miracle drug. For some, it blew anti-depressants out of the water. Of course, it ended up on the Schedule I, "no recognized medicinal value" along with Marijuana. Thank the pharmaceutical companies.
Drug policy is, and has always been, about control. For drug companies, it forces you to use their products. And the drug companies will do everything in its power to prevent drug laws from ever changing. I can't think of any other reason why you can pick up powerful dissociatives and schedule I precursors at your local Rite Aid. Drug laws are perfect for social control because they are so easy to selectively enforce. The only reason drugs aren't legalized is because more people are not arrested: white, black, rich, poor. Believe me, when people see their own uncles, aunts, parents, children getting arrested for smoking pot, it will become legalized. If legalization is your goal, then decriminalization is your worst enemy. Decriminalization is a strategic move taken by the government in order to maintain control in any way it can.
I gots more to say, but I'll leave it here for now. But to answer Derek's question--I wouldn't stop at drugs.
-- MatthewZorn - 28 Feb 2010
How about this - instead of trying to go whole hog and ask "why stop", let's think about how to make an argument of why it wouldn't go any further. Granted, I'm not opposed to the idea of pushing further, but that is probably not going to be an overwhelmingly popular argument. Heck, even this argument will meet stiff resistance, and it makes a pretty good deal of sense. Most people who may not be totally against the legalization of drugs may be afraid of the "slippery slope" that follows the legalization of a vice crime. If there's ever going to be a change like this one, it will be met with fear, so we should look at if those fears can be realistically met and calmed. I'll give it a shot.
First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw. The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way.
Sweet, so let's just say we beat the slippery slope argument (upsetting however many hundreds of years of legal thought). What's next? If we legalize this specific type of "vice crime" then the next thing to deal with would be the idea/argument/fear of a moral unraveling. To be honest, I'd anticipate this noise coming largely from conservative christians, people with a lot of money in pharmacy, and your run of the mill (ignorant) racists.
Conservative christians is pretty self-explanatory, these are the people who worked their asses off to get an alcohol ban written into the Constitution, and did it. Not exactly a group that's going to take the legalization of drugs sitting down, no matter what the economic/social incentive. They'll be a difficult group to contend with, they're well funded, and arguing with a belief is like having a staring contest with the sun; you're going to lose in more ways than one. People with lots of money in pharmaceuticals are going to be difficult to persuade as well; no one wants to give up a money making monopoly. Money has power, so not only will this group be tough to persuade, but they'll be able to throw a lot of money into propaganda (DARE anyone?). Finally, you've got your (special) racists, who will most likely find another group to belong to real quick as to not be labeled racist (that's not PC anymore after all). These folks will be among the special few who still believe drug use will lead to an intermingling of the races, and hate that idea. They are still out there. Again, they're not going to be persuaded.
With at least three groups (at least two powerful and well funded) against this proposition, all of whom will be firing from a moral high ground, it's going to take baby steps if even the legalization of drugs is going to work. While not losing sight of the end goal is important, more necessary is taking the small steps to get there. Start with what already seems to be happening - marijuana. Medicinal use is legal in several states, and several more have laws being considered, so this could be fertile ground. If you've got a plan, this ought to be the first step.
-- MichaelHilton - 02 Mar 2010
| >
> | I moved the discussion here.
-- JohnAlbanese - 02 Mar 2010 | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 9 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.DRussellKraft
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Current drug laws are wholly ineffective. While not significantly limiting supply or use, they waste billions of dollars, incarcerate millions of people, and fund criminal enterprises. Legalization and regulation will eliminate the problems with limiting supply and will finance efforts to limit demand. President Obama, an admitted cocain user, managed to avoid the consequences of the laws that he now continues to enforce. All drug users should hope to be so fortunate.
| |
<
< | Why stop at drugs? | >
> | Why stop at drugs? | | | -- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010
Derek, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay.
-- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | | >
> | Read my paper -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010 | | |
What bothers me more are the widespread misconceptions about drugs. MDMA, for example, during its DEA scheduling was recommended for Schedule III. Any doctor who knew anything about the drug said it had medicinal value. It had been used by psychotherapists with extraordinary success, some even calling it a miracle drug. For some, it blew anti-depressants out of the water. Of course, it ended up on the Schedule I, "no recognized medicinal value" along with Marijuana. Thank the pharmaceutical companies. | | | How about this - instead of trying to go whole hog and ask "why stop", let's think about how to make an argument of why it wouldn't go any further. Granted, I'm not opposed to the idea of pushing further, but that is probably not going to be an overwhelmingly popular argument. Heck, even this argument will meet stiff resistance, and it makes a pretty good deal of sense. Most people who may not be totally against the legalization of drugs may be afraid of the "slippery slope" that follows the legalization of a vice crime. If there's ever going to be a change like this one, it will be met with fear, so we should look at if those fears can be realistically met and calmed. I'll give it a shot. | |
<
< | First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw? . The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way. | >
> | First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw. The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way. | | | Sweet, so let's just say we beat the slippery slope argument (upsetting however many hundreds of years of legal thought). What's next? If we legalize this specific type of "vice crime" then the next thing to deal with would be the idea/argument/fear of a moral unraveling. To be honest, I'd anticipate this noise coming largely from conservative christians, people with a lot of money in pharmacy, and your run of the mill (ignorant) racists. |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 8 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.MichaelHilton
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | I gots more to say, but I'll leave it here for now. But to answer Derek's question--I wouldn't stop at drugs.
-- MatthewZorn - 28 Feb 2010 | |
>
> |
How about this - instead of trying to go whole hog and ask "why stop", let's think about how to make an argument of why it wouldn't go any further. Granted, I'm not opposed to the idea of pushing further, but that is probably not going to be an overwhelmingly popular argument. Heck, even this argument will meet stiff resistance, and it makes a pretty good deal of sense. Most people who may not be totally against the legalization of drugs may be afraid of the "slippery slope" that follows the legalization of a vice crime. If there's ever going to be a change like this one, it will be met with fear, so we should look at if those fears can be realistically met and calmed. I'll give it a shot.
First, the "slippery slope" argument would have to be met. I do not, and probably never will never will, accept the idea of a slippery slope. I think the courts have a little more self-control than that, and it's not very hard to point out. Look at the application of racial discrimination laws we've been reading about in ConLaw? . The Court set a precedent that legislation which disparately affected a minority group without relating to a governmental purpose of exceeding importance would be examined with strict scrutiny. Then, through a series of decisions that found creative readings of former decisions as ways to fly in the face of that idea, the Court decided that's actually not how things are going to be. Poof! That slippery slope got pretty sticky. We all know the Court will decide what it's going to decide, precedent can be found anywhere, or made up on the spot. The slippery slope argument has little truth to it, and a exists generally as tactic used to stagnate social change and keep the status quo. If it can be beaten (using some pretty words so the general public will accept what we already know), that's one fear, and argument against legalization, out of the way.
Sweet, so let's just say we beat the slippery slope argument (upsetting however many hundreds of years of legal thought). What's next? If we legalize this specific type of "vice crime" then the next thing to deal with would be the idea/argument/fear of a moral unraveling. To be honest, I'd anticipate this noise coming largely from conservative christians, people with a lot of money in pharmacy, and your run of the mill (ignorant) racists.
Conservative christians is pretty self-explanatory, these are the people who worked their asses off to get an alcohol ban written into the Constitution, and did it. Not exactly a group that's going to take the legalization of drugs sitting down, no matter what the economic/social incentive. They'll be a difficult group to contend with, they're well funded, and arguing with a belief is like having a staring contest with the sun; you're going to lose in more ways than one. People with lots of money in pharmaceuticals are going to be difficult to persuade as well; no one wants to give up a money making monopoly. Money has power, so not only will this group be tough to persuade, but they'll be able to throw a lot of money into propaganda (DARE anyone?). Finally, you've got your (special) racists, who will most likely find another group to belong to real quick as to not be labeled racist (that's not PC anymore after all). These folks will be among the special few who still believe drug use will lead to an intermingling of the races, and hate that idea. They are still out there. Again, they're not going to be persuaded.
With at least three groups (at least two powerful and well funded) against this proposition, all of whom will be firing from a moral high ground, it's going to take baby steps if even the legalization of drugs is going to work. While not losing sight of the end goal is important, more necessary is taking the small steps to get there. Start with what already seems to be happening - marijuana. Medicinal use is legal in several states, and several more have laws being considered, so this could be fertile ground. If you've got a plan, this ought to be the first step.
-- MichaelHilton - 02 Mar 2010 | | |
|
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 7 - 01 Mar 2010 - Main.PeterCavanaugh
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Why stop at drugs?
-- DRussellKraft - 28 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | Russell, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay. | >
> | Derek, can you clarify what you mean by this question? Are you referring to other vice crimes? Regardless, I don't think this essay was about line drawing. The legalization of other activities would require separate analyses beyond the scope of John's essay. | | | -- PeterCavanaugh - 28 Feb 2010 |
|
|
JohnAlbaneseFirstPaper 6 - 01 Mar 2010 - Main.JohnAlbanese
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Eradication is equally useless. The United States gives hundred of millions of dollars in aid each year to foreign governments to try to eradicate the production of drugs. Eradication generally involves the spraying of toxic chemicals over vast swaths of farmland. Perhaps the most glaring example of the ineffectiveness of eradication is poppy production in Afghanistan. Although the country has been occupied by the United States for nearly a decade, poppy production is at high levels. Recently, the United States gave up on its eradication efforts to focus on alternative methods.
Incarceration is Costly and Counterproductive | |
<
< | Likewise, incarceration efforts have failed. Over 300, 000 people in this country are imprisoned for drug law violations. A conservative estimate for the cost of imprisoning a person is $20, 000 per year. This means that the government is spending about six billion dollars a year to keep drug offenders in prison. Many of these people are unable to find jobs after serving their sentence and return to using or selling drugs. Due to the violent nature of prison, imprisoning people can transform the non-violent drug offender into a violent one. | >
> | Likewise, incarceration efforts have failed. Over 300, 000 people in this country are imprisoned for drug law violations. A conservative estimate for the cost of imprisoning a person is $20, 000 per year. This means that the government is spending about six billion dollars a year to keep drug offenders in prison. Many of these people are unable to find jobs after serving their sentence and return to using or selling drugs. Due to the violent nature of prison, imprisoning people can transform the non-violent drug offender into a violent one. | | | Drug Laws Have Painful Side Effects
Besides failing to limit the supply of drugs, these laws have two tragic side effects. Since drugs are illegal, the main producers and sellers are criminal organizations, including large drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and street gangs. It is estimated that the illicit drug trade makes $321.6 billion a year. The lucrative nature of the drug trade creates competition that often leads to extreme violence. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|