Drugs (the illegal stuff)

[Sunanta]

...And I thought this was a conservative community... hehe, ur, ahem (do not try to infer my political affiliation from this comment- you'd probably be way off).

Jaguar, the founders hardly believed in a purely capitalist society. That's darwinism (Star Trek makes a halfway decent example of this in the Ferengi). Purely capitalist societies A: probably wouldn't be democracies, B: would probably not have too many rights for the individual, and C: would probably degenerate into an autocracy, then anarchy. Look at Rome. Not that I'm a die-hard socialist or anything, but pure anything is bad (USSR style socialism didn't work and you never really hear of US communes any more, but a hint of it doesn't hurt- look at welfare, medicaid, medicare, and the baker's dozen other government programs).

On to drugs:

The reason alcohol and cigerattes aren't illegal is because they are distributed by highly established and politically well-connected corporations. Now, if we were to legalize illicit drugs, then tax them, we would be endorsing their use by saying "It's OK if you do cocaine and amphetamines and glue so long as we profit from you." Using Darwinism as an excuse to weed out drug users by letting them kill themselves (even if they kill or wound others in the process- hey can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs, right?) is literally barbaric. We are a (relatively) civilized, sentient species- we don't have to wait for evolution to make our decisions- we have the ability to take matters into our own hands- therefore it would be unthinkable (not to mention a moral atrocity) to revert to primitive 'survival of the fittest' principles.

It's my own body:

It's my own body, right? So let me stuff my bloodstream full of highly toxic and dangerously psychotropic compounds! So what if I become irrational, walk out of my house and over to the local elementary school and break a few kids necks, paralyzing them for the rest of their lives. So what if I, while intoxicated and incredibly high, get into a car and slam into an emergency room at 90 miles an hour? So what if I wander in a psychotic fever over to the beach and rip that helpless 80 year old couple limb from bloody limb despite the fact that they manage to dump a few canisters of pepper spray into my face that they responsibly carried, but to no avail since I was on crystal methamphetamine. So what?

Get the picture?

You become irrational when you take illegal drugs. You are no longer in control of your actions- even if it is 'your body,' think of the kids at the school and the seniors at the beach- you don't own their bodies, do you? Were it not for these drugs, crime would plummet. Punish only the crime and you would see little or no effect. Again, when you are high, you are irrational. You do not think of the law or of anything else. You no longer control your actions, but are, in the end, still responsible for them since the rational you decided to take these drugs, regardless of the highly publicized consequences. The only place an intoxicated person is from others is inside a sealed bank vault with six straightjackets securely locked in place. Even then, they would be endangering themselves and the hearts and minds of those that care and love them, which may further increase drug use due to depression. As you see, drugs are a never-ending cycle of addiction, despair, and death.

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

[Wolferz]

Now here is a point worth arguing.

Yes, it's true that the Netherlands legalized drugs. Guess what, their crime rate went down, they put their addicts back into the workforce (very productive individuals too), and they severely curbed the spread of diseases that are transmitted via needle sharing.

In essence, they made drug addiction no worse than drinking alcohol.

The United States outlawed Marijuana back in the early thirties. Know why?

Two major players in the US economic picture of that time were the cause. The Pharmaceutical Companies and the Oil Barons.

The (so-called legal) drug producers wanted Marijuana to be illegal because people used it as a natural analgesic, broncho-dilator, and appetite enhancer. Heaven forbid that people use a relatively safe medication that they can grow themselves. They won't buy ours!

Then there was the oil companies. In the early part of the twentieth century, we saw many leaps and bounds in the chemical industry. There were so many things invented that could be created from oil or its derivitives. Hemp was a major player at that time also. Hemp makes the best rope, as well as very strong and durable clothing. With all the new fangled artificial fabrics, (Rayon, Nylon, etc) the only way to sell these things was to have Hemp banned. So, the oil companies lobbied right along side the drug barons to not only have Marijuana eradicated, but Hemp too. (They argued that someone could sneak and grow Marijuana in with the Hemp, so it was better to outlaw both just to be on the safe side.) (Little did they know at the time, it's better to grow Hemp like Corn, and Marijuanna in Pine thickets.) I have also seen it growing in a Hoosier cornfield, marked with blue ribbon, in plain sight of a busy highway. They caught him.

Y'all can argue government, parties, right, wrong, or indifferent, I personally do not condone the use of any kind of drug that has been created by the hands of men. Just look at the drug commercials they run on TV. Side effect this, side effect that. I don't trust the legal drug makers any more than I trust the illegal ones. They're both in it for the MONEY.

At the least, if it was all legalized and controlled (like alcohol, cigarettes and tobacco) it would...

1. Remove much or all of the criminal element.

2. Reduce or eliminate the spread of certain diseases propagated by needle sharing. (Hepatitis, AIDS, and probably a few more we don't know about yet.)

3. Remove many many productive citizens from the overcrowded prison systems. (Solves our prison overcrowding problems.)

4. Give law enforcement something more important to do than break down peoples doors and confiscate all their belongings just because they smoke a little weed now and again. (It would also prevent innocent people from getting shot and killed. In my hometown, a man was shot and killed by a police drug raid. When they busted down his door, naturally he sprang from the couch to see what the commotion was all about and a trigger happy officer popped him three times. It turns out that the Police were at the wrong address.)

Our Maker put everything we need in the form of food, herbs, and other naturally occurring items on this planet. It's pure, it's natural, it's good for you, and it grows right out of the ground. In my book, if God put it here for us to morally use, what man has a right to deny us it's moral use? I say moral because everything carries responsibility. Wine in moderation is good for you, etc etc.

I have witnessed a friend die the slow death that alcohol brings.

I have watched a friend go out of his mind by abusing legally prescribed drugs. Today he sits and he stares at the wall. I wonder why his Doctor ignored the problem, even after the guy's wife told him there was a problem?

I have witnessed teenagers falling down stairs and barfing on their neighbors at concerts because they blitzed a fifth of (insert favorite booze here) before arriving.

The sane people would merely light them up and pass them down. At the end of the show, the sane people left and went home, while the (now passed out cold in the restroom) drunken teenagers were either carted off by friends or the police.

I have witnessed the aftermath of many car accidents where booze was involved. (One involved my brother, who was driving. My brother was severely injured and the gentleman who was with him, died.

"Take their keys" should apply no matter what substance someone wants to abuse.

Summary: If it ain't natural, it's all bad!

America is a drug oriented society. As George Carlin so eloquently put it...

"They start you out small. We are taught from an early age... Head hurts? Two in the mouth. These are orange. The other colors come later."

Last but not least....

Unsubstantiated hypothesis follows....

"What do you suppose the native Americans smoked in their peace pipes that made them so peaceful?" or "Did the early republic send agents to switch the peace pipe tobacco with some wacky weed? Once cotton mouth had set in, whisky was provided. Once stoned and drunk, anyone would sign away what is now South Carolina."

No matter how you look at it, it's a wacky world we live in. If we all could consider the consequences of our actions, this planet would be a great place to live.

Live by the original Eleven rules and you don't have to worry about the umpteen zillion that our benefactors in government have come up with.

[Kush]

It's funny, both sides of the argument make total sense.

You legalize it, it becomes too easily available. (But it is already easily available know.)

You keep it criminalized, and you create criminals and feed billions of dollars into the hands of organized crime. (But there would be organized crime even if drugs were legal.)

I agree that pot should be legal. I can't smoke it anymore, at thirty, I'm too old. It makes me fall asleep. And when I was younger I never really smoked it that often, at a party I'd take one toke and try to have a conversation with the girl I had a crush on, and I'd just start laughing at nothing, and shoving nacho chips down my throat. I learned the hard way it's not a great tool to pick up women.

Cocain is a different story. We all know that. It's a stupid drug. It makes you talk fast, makes your nose bleed, and you do it long enough, you can no longer... function... if you know what I mean.

And Heroin kills you. It makes you a slave and then kills you.

The problem with pot being illegal is that you have to get it from a dealer. And pot doesn't make a dealer alot of money. Or rather, a dealer would rather you move on to Coke or H, s/he makes more money that way. I've seen this in action, it's simple economics.

I think you could actually reduce the amount of Cocain and Heroin use in the young if you just made pot legal. I would rather know that my child picked up some legal pot from a safe source than a dealer who could possibly turn them on to stonger, more lethal drugs.

[Guest Shingen]

aramike wrote:

quote:

---

OK, uhm, please tell me that you actually DIDN'T know what I meant by "chemical dependency". I really see no reason to debate silly semantics.

---

OK, uhm, I DID know what you meant by a 'chemically-dependency', but it's also illogically foolish to say that you DON'T live in a chemically-dependent society, and then go pop a pill for your headache while filling your coffee with creamer and puffing on a cigerette. Changing the names and the legal status of the chemical doesn't make us less a chemically dependent society.

Also it's foolish to say that ALL ILLEGAL DRUG-USERS are crazed, gun-weilding lunatics bent on mass-murder and crime-sprees in order to get their 'dope'. I was born and bred in the 'drug culture', and EVERYONE I knew when I was growing up used one chemical or another in order to 'get high'. I CAN'T remember a single person you commited a VIOLENT crime in order to secure their dope. I CAN think of multiple people who were incarcerated for simply possessing a controled substance and thereby thrown into the same cells as the violent criminals. It's stupid to think that we can control drug use by systematically incarcerating people, and warehousing them for the profit of the state simply because they possesed a controled substance. (ie: drug)

I remember when I was a kid and I first starting smoking cigarettes. My dad didn't forbid me from cigarettes, in fact, he MADE me smoke an entire PACK of cigerettes in one sitting! This is probably the reason I DON'T smoke now. Have you ever smoke an ENTIRE pack of cigarettes in one sitting???

I believe that forbidding something only makes it MORE desirable for children/young adults because they ALL basically go through the 'rebelious' phase and will do most anything and everything that they CAN'T do. (I'm NOT saying murder or any other violent crime) ..then you end up with over-crowded jails full of NON-VIOLENT drug-users taking up space that could be used to house VIOLENT felons. Instead of using COMMON SENSE, we build MORE jails and warhouse MORE people, or simply RELEASE the violent ones, so that we can INCARCERATE more people for the drug offences!

Did you know that in the state of OK it is possible to get MORE PRISON TIME for growing marijuana then for rape, murder and child abuse! How can the drug-war be 'right' and moral with this kind of bullsh*t!

..and just because the DEA comes out with a bunch of numbers DOESN'T make it a fact since most of all drug-users don't TRUST the US federal government enough to TELL THE TRUTH about their drug USE! So, those statistics are most probably NOT compliant with they actual DRUG-USING population.

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[aramike]

[Guest]

All drugs were legal up to the 1920's, where do you think Coca-Cola got it's name. I have never heard any stories about how someone all coked up on Coca-Cola went out and took out the neighbors or their new car.

The Drug war is nothing more then the government taking away our freedoms and our choices. The government has no place to try and make a personal choice illegal, Morality is not the governments job, it is the parents job.

As long as I don't hurt anyone else or get into a situation where I can hurt people, by being in Public, driving a car etc. It should be NONE of the governments business.

I can teach my children that drugs are bad, I also can handle some crackhead going off and killing himself, it doesn't bother me a bit, as long as he hurts no one else in the process.

There, if you truly do not like government controls, then you should be for drug legalization, if you truly believe in the constitution, you should be for drug legalization, if you are for individual rights and responsibilities, then you should be for drug legalization, if you are for smaller, more controllable government, then you should be for drug legalization.

As long as the government has this DRUG WAR going on, then you will see abuses by the Geovernment, breaking down the WRONG doors, confiscating property without a trial, just try and get it back. Police raids, drug users in prison with Rapists and murderers.

Drug use is a victimless crime, and therefore should not be a crime at all.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

Sure, ban alcohol. The only difference is, alcohol is not a major source of CRIMINAL activity.

---

How can you say that alcohol is NOT a major source of criminal activity when most domestic abuse cases involve alcohol, most bar brawls resulting in death involve alcohol, ALL drunk driving cases involve alcohol, most public disturbance cases involve alochol, etc.ect.ect...

quote:

---

My argument is backed by facts (did you even bother to look at the STATISTICS?). Your argument is semantic and baseless apparently.

---

These numbers cover ARRESTED individuals, and HOW MANY are from the SAME people being arrested MULTIPLE times? I can think of several people who use 'drugs' (mostly pot) that have NEVER been arrested, so this leads to believe that there are alot of people out there that use 'drugs' that have NEVER came into contact with the DEA. Also, I DON'T believe in the 'intergrity' of the DEA, those numbers are used to secure funds from the government (ie: US) in order to continue the 'war on drugs'. How can they PROVE that each one of those number represent a SEPERATE persons and NOT persons that have been arrested several times in different circumstances.

quote:

---

Yeah, you did. When you accuse ME of something while having NO clue what YOU are talking about, I get ticked. When you avoid the REAL argument is favor of semantics, THEN say something like that, I feel you to be underqualified to make ANY assertion of any kind, because you have no base or facts.

---

ummm... I haven't seen you throw out any FACTS as of yet. My 'facts' come from personal experience, not some web-page written by an organization formed to OPPRESS people who CHOOSE to use CHEMICALS.

quote:

---

"What is understood need not be discussed." -Jane Adams.

In other words, semantics is useless. You know what I meant, therefore you had no need to change the discussion into rhetoric.

---

again.. you missed my ENTIRE point! must I explain it again?

quote:

---

I'm not saying that. Just look at the stats. What are you afraid of?

---

I'm afraid that your 'stats' don't reflect the actual STATE of the NUMBERS of people who actually USE controlled substances. My guess is that it's very much HIGHER then qouted by the DEA. This would lead me to believe that the MAJORITY of drug-USERS are non-violent, tax-paying INDIVIDUALS who, because of the 'drug-war', are at risk of losing their freedom for simply POSSESSING a 'controled substance.

I'm also afraid of losing my freedom of CHOICE because people are acting out of FEAR instead of common sense. Take mandatory drug testing. I'll admit that there are some professions where it might be feasible, but I also DO NOT believe that one should be FORCED to provide a urine sample simply because some company/organization DEMANDS it! What I do in the privacy of my own home is MY OWN DAMN BUSINESS, and unless I report to work intoxicated, then the fact that I do or don't use certain drugs is again, none of their damn business.

quote:

---

1: You've failed to address those statistics I've shown you.

---

I have already...

quote:

---

2: You've failed to address the "endangerment" argument.

---

I did. I said: People should be prosecuted for the CRIME, NOT possessing using a chemical substance.

quote:

---

3: The only point that you've made was semantic.

---

yeah, right... what are you afraid of?

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[Akuma Minako]

I'm not sure what to do. Some of the drugs like Marijuana and Mushrooms arn't adictive if they're clean...In that respect I mean not laced with anything extra. This I learned in CALM class. (Career and Life Managment) But I don't think that legalizing them would make it any better for anyone.

Gawd I can just see Anarchy raising it's ugly head if that ever happened in Canada. We'd all go nuts! And we're already crazy enough as it is!

[aramike]

[Guest Shingen]

suites me just fine...

[aramike]

Jaguar:

quote:

---

The Drug war is nothing more then the government taking away our freedoms and our choices. The government has no place to try and make a personal choice illegal, Morality is not the governments job, it is the parents job.

---

I agree that the government has no business defining morality. However, under that argument, one can say that the parent is responsible for defining murder as moral or immoral.

Further, the government is not taking away our choices - we can still CHOOSE to do these things. The difference is in the fact that society can punish those who choose poorly.

quote:

---

As long as I don't hurt anyone else or get into a situation where I can hurt people, by being in Public, driving a car etc. It should be NONE of the governments business.

---

Agreed. Therein, however, lies the problem and the reason I agree with outlawing drugs.

While I would trust someone like YOU to not get into those situations, I'm not about to TRUST a drug addict. I mean, how ridiculous is that? Let's TRUST people who just as soon sell their children for their next dose of heroine. I mean, we can't hardly enforce drunk DRIVING laws! People STILL get behind the wheel. So, we legalize drugs that are even MORE dangerous and impairing. What do we do when THOSE people start driving? What kind of technology can combat this (some cars won't let a person drive when they are intoxicated)?

Also, what do we do about the side-effects? What do we do about the person who is driving while totally sober, but has a bad trip suddenly creep up on them? What about the person who gets so impaired that they make a NON-CRIMINAL mistake that costs lives?

You say we can only punish for a crime. What about the people who LEGALLY do drugs but end up harming people accidently as a side-effect? That isn't criminal and there is no way into forcing them to stop the reason they are risking harm of others.

This is why drugs should remain illegal. If (that's a BIG "IF") we can someday ASSURE that people won't suffer "bad trips", won't leave their homes and get behind the wheel (because they are too impaired to know that it is wrong), people won't become so dependant that they hurt others for their next drugs, etc., I'll be fine with legalizing it.

But the idea that we should let the problem GROW when our police can't even keep up with the major drunk driving problem is insane.

Do you like taxes, Jaguar? We'd be paying more of those as we'd need more police. In other words, we'd sacrifice some of OUR freedoms so that drug addicts can have THEIR chemical freedoms.

I am *supposed* to be free to be safe on my streets. I don't even have that. So, let's make the problem WORSE?

Jaguar, is sacrificing one freedom for another freedom WORTH it?

The best way to stop crime is not to punish it after it happens, it's to punish it before anyone gets hurt.

[Guest Shingen]

ok, here's a few 'facts'...as it were...

EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERDICTION EXPENDITURES

To achieve a one percent reduction in U.S. cocaine consumption, the United States could spend an additional $34 million on drug treatment programs or $783 million on efforts to eradicate the supply at the source.

In 1997, the most recent year for which statistics are available, South American countries produced about 650 metric tons of cocaine for export to the United States. Eighty-six percent of that cocaine made it past interdiction and eradication efforts. The wholesale cost of cocaine in 1998 (the most recent year for which figures are available) was almost one-fifth of what it was in 1981, when the government spent virtually no money on interdiction and eradication efforts.

The White House will spend $1.7 billion on "shielding air, land, and sea frontiers" in fiscal year 1999. The United States has 88,633 miles of shoreline, 300 ports of entry, and 7,500 miles of border with Mexico and Canada. The U.S. pays $17,700 per mile in an effort to keep illegal drugs out of the country. Still, 90 percent of the heroin and 70 percent of the cocaine sent into the U.S. still makes it in.

Louis J. Rodrigues, a senior official with the General Accounting Office, testified before the Senate in 1993 that, "interdiction has not made a difference in terms of the higher goals of deterring smugglers and reducing the flow of cocaine. The portion of the federal drug budget allocated to supply reduction initiatives has almost doubled over the last five years and funding for [the] Department of Defense's detection and monitoring mission has increased over 400 percent since 1989. Yet cocaine remains affordable, its purity remains high, and it continues to be readily available on American streets."

EFFECTIVENESS OF ERADICATION APPROACH

In 1997, the Drug Enforcement Administration and its state law enforcement partners eradicated 240,967,455 marijuana plants. However, 98.4 percent of the plants destroyed were ditchweed, a low-grade form of marijuana that grows wild.

WHAT IS CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE?

Civil asset forfeiture allows police to seize property in the absence of a criminal charge or the establishment of guilt if police believe they find any evidence of a drug-related crime. There is no proportionality test - for example, if police find one marijuana plant they can seize and keep an entire house.

Civil asset forfeiture also has built-in opportunities for abuse. Police are allowed to keep what they seize and, in many jurisdictions, they budget for anticipated seizures, making it necessary to reach a certain quota.

ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL CHARGE OR ESTABLISHMENT OF GUILT

In more than 80 percent of asset forfeiture cases the owner of the property is never charged with a crime, yet government officials can, and usually do, keep the seized property.

"Nothing less than the sanctity of private property is at stake here." - Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) in a June 22, 1995 press release.

The most shocking story, according to Rep. Hyde, was the murder of 61-year old millionaire Donald Scott in front of his wife. Federal officials believed that there was marijuana on Scott's ranch. They were wrong - there wasn't any.

INCENTIVES FOR ABUSES WITHIN THE SYSTEM

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 provided that state and local police agencies may keep 80 percent of seized assets when federal agents are involved, a procedure called adoption. This provision gives law enforcement the power to "go federal" and bypass more restrictive state laws. In Kansas City, police have circumvented a Missouri law mandating that the proceeds from all assets seized must go to the public school system. By using the federal provision for adoption, Kansas City police get most of the seized property back from the federal government.

Police are required by federal law to use seized assets for "law enforcement purposes." In Warren County, NJ, this means that the chief assistant prosecutor drives a yellow Corvette seized in a CAF case.

According to the Congress’ General Accounting Office, cash, which is one of the most commonly seized assets, is frequently "mismanaged," and is ripe for theft by police.

LACK OF A PROPORTIONALITY TEST

There is no limit on the assets law enforcement can seize for even the smallest of violations. If a law enforcement agent were to find a marijuana plant growing in someone's backyard, or on their farm, they could seize the entire farm or house, along with the owner's vehicles and anything else owned by that person.

RAISING THE STANDARD

Currently the law calls for citizens to prove that their property is not guilty by a “preponderance of the evidence” – even if the owner was unaware of the criminal activity on the property or if the owner did everything reasonable to stop such activity.

Raising that standard to the higher "clear and convincing" standard of proof would lessen abuses. Other groups endorsing this provision include the American Bankers Association, Americans for Tax Reform and the Institute for Justice.

WHAT DOES LAW ENFORCEMENT DO WITH SEIZED ASSETS?

An Aug. 22, 1997 Dateline NBC broadcast revealed that Louisiana police have spent money gained from asset forfeiture on ski trips to Aspen, CO, meals at local restaurants and on shopping trips to Wal-Mart.

According to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, agents often pay informants 25 percent of the assets seized in exchange for a tip.

RECENT LEGISLATION

On June 24, 1999, the House of Representatives passed Rep. Hyde's Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act 375-48. Action is pending in the Senate. The bill would:

Force the government to prove that seized property is related to a crime, as opposed to the current practice of property owners having to prove that their property is not guilty;

Create an "innocent owner" defense, whereby property owners unaware of criminal activity occurring on their property could recover their property;

Provide indigent defendants with appointed counsel; and

Eliminate the cost bond requirement, which currently requires property owners to pay up to $5,000 or 10 percent of the seized property's value in order to contest the seizure in court.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Isn't civil asset forfeiture mostly aimed at big drug cartel leaders and not everyday Americans?

No. While the law may have been intended to punish major drug traffickers who accumulated ill-gotten wealth, police do not confine civil forfeiture to wealthy criminals. Law enforcement even seized a research vessel from the University of California-San Diego's Oceanography Department when a crewmember was caught with a tiny amount of marijuana.

Who is in favor of civil asset forfeiture?

The Department of Justice and police departments that benefit from the sale or distribution of seized assets. DOJ has asked lawmakers in both the House and Senate to introduce legislation that would gut the reforms in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. The Hutchinson/Weiner Amendment, as the House version is known, failed by a 268-155 vote.

Drug Policy: Drug Testing

DPF believes that suspicionless drug testing is a violation of the privacy of individual citizens and opposes government efforts to institutionalize drug testing when better options, such as impairment testing, exist. DPF also opposes government subsidies or tax incentives to expand drug testing in the business community.

Courts in many states have found that suspicionless drug testing violates an individual's right to privacy. California, for example, has found that there are five ways in which drug testing violates privacy: exposure of the human anatomy, forced extraction of bodily fluids, compelled disclosure of medical information, surveillance of off-duty activity, and dissemination of confidential test results.

Currently, most drug testing is done through urine testing. The technology to test for drugs through fingernail and hair samples exists and the cost of those tests is falling. DPF believes that these tests are a significant danger to employees because they have the capacity to deliver private DNA information about employees to employers.

If privacy concerns were not enough, drug testing needs to be replaced as a guarantor of public safety because it asks the wrong question of the employee. Instead of trying to determine whether the employee is impaired at the time he or she shows up to work, urinalysis and hair testing only look to the employee's biochemical past and provides, at best, only circumstantial evidence about drug use. When accurate, a urine or hair sample only says that an employee has used drugs, not when or whether the person was impaired. It is a form of guilt by association instead of a test of a person's functionality. DPF believes that impairment testing is both more cost-effective and comprehensive than urine and hair testing.

Furthermore, 11 states now require drug testing of pregnant women or newborns to track illegal drug use by the woman. In 1989, South Carolina began arresting women after giving birth if they tested positive for illegal drugs. The Drug Policy Foundation objects to the use of drug testing tied to criminal sanctions because it deters pregnant women from seeking critical prenatal care and drug treatment services. DPF supports increased public awareness about the risks of prenatal exposure to legal and illegal drugs, but does not agree with using mandatory drug tests as a deterrent to illegal drug use.

THREE FACTS:

1. Companies that use performance testing have found that fatigue, stress and illness are the most common factors leading to poor job performance.

2. Urine tests reveal many physical and mental conditions, including medication for hypertension, epilepsy or diabetes, and a genetic predisposition to heart disease or cancer. With fingernail and hair testing becoming more prevalent, DNA privacy risks are higher than ever.

3. Traces of marijuana remain in the user's body for weeks without psychoactive effect. A positive test for marijuana is not a reliable indicator of on-the-job impairment.

The D.A.R.E Program

PREVALENCE OF DARE

According to the Clinton White House, 70 percent of American school districts use the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program. An August 1999 study in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology put the number at closer to 80 percent. Over 26 million students are enrolled in DARE programs each year.

DARE is the dominant drug education program in schools because it is provided to local schools free of charge. The federal government picks up much of the tab.

EFFECTIVENESS OF DARE

More than a dozen studies have found DARE to be ineffective, including:

A 1999 study published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that children who took the DARE program in elementary school used drugs and alcohol at the same rate 10 years later as children who learned about them in traditional health classes

A 1998 University of Illinois study found that kids in the DARE program used the same amount of drugs as non-DARE students. Researchers also found that DARE actually has an adverse effect on drug activity in suburban communities. Suburban students who were exposed to DARE had significantly higher levels of drug use than suburban students who did not get the DARE program.

A 1996 study found that “no significant differences were observed between intervention and comparison schools with respect to cigarette, alcohol or marijuana use during the 7th grade, approximately one year after completion of the DARE program or over the full five-year measurement interval.... The findings of this five-year prospective study are largely consonant with the results obtained from prior short-term evaluations of the DARE curriculum, which have reported limited effects of the program upon drug use.”

A 1996 University of Kentucky study found that there was no positive lasting effect from DARE training. The study also found that a four-foot tall robot squirrel intended to spread DARE’s message in Woodford County, Kentucky, was ineffective.

A 1996 Austin, Texas, city audit showed that a higher percentage of students with DARE education landed in jail than students without DARE education. Austin subsequently dismantled its DARE program.

A 1995 study commissioned by the California Department of Education found that programs that rely on lectures and assemblies to promote the evils of drugs and alcohol lack credibility with California teenagers and fail to reach the students most at-risk of using drugs. The study concluded that DARE was ineffective at reducing drug use among school-age children.

A 1994 study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and others found that “DARE’s core curriculum effect on drug use relative to whatever drug education (if any) was offered in the control schools is ... not statistically significant.” The study also found that “DARE’s limited influence on adolescent drug use behavior contrasts with the program’s popularity and prevalence.”

The Drug Policy Foundation

..as you can see, there are as many 'facts' againstthe drug war, as you can find for the drug war...

[aramike]

...very one-sided facts. I imagine they don't come from a very objective source.

Regardless, my points in the last post still stand.

Btw, that report essentially found drug education to be useless. Therefore, another method of control should be employed.

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

[Guest Apollyon]

quote:

---

I agree that the government has no business defining morality. However, under that argument, one can say that the parent is responsible for defining murder as moral or immoral.

---

It is the responsiblity of the parents to define murder as moral or immoral. It is the responsibility of government to enforce definition. If we lived in a society where murder was moral, then that is what the government would enforce.

quote:

---

You say we can only punish for a crime. What about the people who LEGALLY do drugs but end up harming people accidently as a side-effect? That isn't criminal and there is no way into forcing them to stop the reason they are risking harm of others.

---

WHAT?!?!?! Since when is involuntary manslaughter not a crime!!

quote:

---

While I would trust someone like YOU to not get into those situations, I'm not about to TRUST a drug addict. I mean, how ridiculous is that? Let's TRUST people who just as soon sell their children for their next dose of heroine. I mean, we can't hardly enforce drunk DRIVING laws! People STILL get behind the wheel. So, we legalize drugs that are even MORE dangerous and impairing. What do we do when THOSE people start driving?

---

I don't see the point here. That logic is anologous to arresting someone for owning tequila just becuase, "THEY MIGHT DRIVE DRUNK AND KILL SOMEONE!!!!" I own some airplane glue that will knock you for a real loop if you breathe it for long enough. Worse than a shot of tequila, I'm talking can barely walk back to the sofa to sit down. If I was arrested for owning something capable of doing that, that is oppression of my right to act responsibly with dangerous things.

I think if drugs were made legal, and you decided that you wanted to do LSD, which is the drug that all these "flashbacks" are associated with, then you should not be allowed to drive ever again. Just because things are legal doesn't mean there aren't consequences to doing them. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. You must earn that priviledge because there is responsibility involved, and it is easy to take that priviledge away.

quote:

---

Those numbers coincide with individual city departmental ratings

---

quote:

---

DRUG STATISTICS

DEA Arrests

(Domestic)

---

aramike: the only statistics you have presented so far have included only DEA figures. The DEA believes that the numbers they catch are a fairly small percentage of the total amount of drug traffic in the US. Somewhere on the order of 30%. If people want to get high there isn't much that we can do about it. I say just legalize it and tax the sh*t out of the moronic bastards. I think we can deal with the effects of drug use much more easily than the fact of drug abuse.

Also, Tac, I'm sorry I worded that comment badly. I do not live in Columbia so I don't know. But it has been my impression that the drug lords use their monetary influence (by buying mercenaries/whomever, and "contributions" to government officials) to affect the country. This was the dependancy that I was speaking of. If drugs were legal the Columbian government could tax them, which would also be a sort of dependancy, but much better in my opinion than the current system (as I see it, I may be wrong). Also, a corporation might have more success making profits than a bunch of gangsters. As witnessed by the fall of the mob from alchohol trafficking after prohibition was repealed.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

...very one-sided facts. I imagine they don't come from a very objective source.

---

You're telling me that the DEA is objective?? My point for all this is that the end sometimes DOES NOT justify the MEANS.

First you want facts AGAINST the drug laws, then when presented with a few, you refute them as 'one-sided' and yet, you don't argue with ANY OF THE POINTS listed.

I have a feeling that decussing drug policy with you is like discussing Capitalism with Menchise...

quote:

---

Btw, that report essentially found drug education to be useless. Therefore, another method of control should be employed.

---

..it would also seem, according to the article, that the Drug-enforcement policy isn't working either, prehaps another method of control should be employed.

here's a few more 'light reading' related articles:

The Drug War Agenda

Drug Addition: Crime or Disease?

Online library of Drug Policy

Drug Policy Research Center

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[aramike]

[Guest Shingen]

[aramike]

Murder plots: I'm not saying that calls should be monitored or any such rubbish. I'm saying that, if a plot is uncovered, it IS illegal. This happens rather frequently, actually.

Legal Drug Use: I'm sure it would rise. Many people mistake "Legality" for "social acceptance". I'm sure there would be the "casual crackhead" much like the casual drinker.

[Guest]

OK, now, I am a staunch supporter of personal responsibility and small government.

Our drug enforcement, as it is now, you are guilty until proven innocent, I would rather have my freedoms and possibly a little more danger, then to have my rights taken away by an overzealous governments drug enforcement agency.

I think that if we were to legalize drugs, we could tax it, in order to pay for the health care and further law enforcement that might be required. But I believe any drug addict should be responsible for those actions and therefore should have to pay their own healthcare.

personal choice and responibility, and innocent until proven guilty, this is why drugs, and I mean ALL drugs, should be legalized.

BUT, you need to make sure that drug addicts do not change the laws regarding jobs. If a company chooses to have drug testing and a no drugs policy, then they should be allowed to have it without any interference from the government.

If you are a drug addict then you have made a choice, and that choice includes limiting your employment opportunities.

[aramike]

quote:

---

I think that if we were to legalize drugs, we could tax it, in order to pay for the health care and further law enforcement that might be required. But I believe any drug addict should be responsible for those actions and therefore should have to pay their own healthcare.

---

That's another problem. Tax it too high, it goes right back underground. Then, ALL taxpayers suffer the burden.

[Guest]

quote:

---

That's another problem. Tax it too high, it goes right back underground. Then, ALL taxpayers suffer the burden.

---

Indeed, but look at cigarettes, we are doing the same thing, no system is perfect, but the Drug enforcement in this country and abroad has gotten WAY out of hand, if legalizing these drugs are what it takes to get them back under constitutional control, then this is what we should do.

I could care less who is a drug addict, I could care less what they do to themselves, but looking at the facts, in countries where Drugs are legal, use is down, overdoses are down, crimes for drugs are down. Taxes to the government are up, and those are what Menchise would lovingly call socialist countries. Our country is a feedom loving country, and as long as this drug war continues, it gives the government the excuse to infringe on our rights.

The governments job is to protect us from each other, not to protect us from ourselves.

When your rights are less important because it is "for the good of society" then we might as well burn the constitution now. The constitution is there to protect our individual rights, but the government will take them, if given the opportunity. The drug war has given them that opportunity.

Again, I say, give me my rights back, I'll live with a little more danger, thank you very much.

And if the streets get covered with addicts, (which I seriously doubt) arrest them and toss them in jail for loitering, or public intoxication. It's what we do with alchohol, and it is what we should do if drugs were made legal. We attach the same laws to these drugs that we do to alchohol.

We also distribute them like Alchohol is distributed, tightly controlled, and taxed. Then if they are an addict of a very addictive or deadly drug, then he should be charged by the hour at a facility that has trained staff to administer the drug and keep him locked up until the high wears off. This will not only make the drug less lethal, but it's use would be controlled and keep the rest of us safe from him.

If you want to go and screw yourself up, you should be allowed to, but you better be ready to pay for it!! And if creating a facility such as this would give me my rights back, then let's do it!!!

[aramike]

I dunno, your take on the Constitution is quite broad. The fundamental guarantees of the Constitution is the right to speak freely and the right live freely.

For one thing, taxation is not Constitutional, so if drugs WERE legalized and taxed, that would be more of a violation of the Constitution than keeping drugs illegal.

Also, the Constitution expresses the FUNDAMENTAL right for all people to live without danger of harm from others. If careless (albiet legal) drug use ever harms someone, it becomes in violation of the Constitution.

My point is, this is not really a Constitutional issue because it could go either way. The Constitution does NOT guarantee life without laws, nor total freedom. It guarantees SPECIFIC freedoms: expression, speech, firearms, press, equality of freedom, freedom from self-incrimination, freedom from government oppression - drug use is not and never was one of those freedoms.

[Guest]

Then I send you to the tenth amendment,

quote:

---

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor

prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

The drug question is at the discretion of the states, not the federal government. The feds need to get out of it and let the states deal with it in their own way.

This drug war is a direct infringement on our constitutional rights, and should therefore be abandoned.

Just my opinion.

[Guest Shingen]

Here is the official White House stance regarding drug legalization.

Legalization, Decriminalization, and Harm Reduction

Given the negative impact of drugs on society, the overwhelming majority of Americans reject illegal drug use. Indeed, millions of citizens who once used drugs have turned their backs on such self-destructive behavior. Study after study confirms that Americans want to guard against the risks of these deadly substances. A 1998 poll of voters conducted by the Family Research Council found that eight of ten respondents rejected the legalization of drugs like cocaine and heroin, with seven out of ten in strong opposition. Moreover, when asked if they supported making these drugs legal in the same way that alcohol is, 82 percent said they opposed legalization. Similarly, a 2000 Gallup poll found that 64 percent of Americans oppose the legalization of marijuana.12 Many drug users enter treatment every year to help recover from chronic abuse of marijuana and other so-called “soft” drugs. The idea of legalizing even these substances overlooks the dangers they pose.

Decriminalization means that although drug use and possession would remain illegal, the penalties against these offenses would be so minimal–similar to those against jaywalking–that drug use would de facto be legal. In 1975 the Alaska Supreme Court decriminalized small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Even though marijuana remained illegal for children, the perception that marijuana was harmful decreased, and marijuana use rates among Alaskan youth increased significantly. Decriminalization ignores the facts that drug use affects the brain, may lead to addiction, causes untold misery to the user and his/her family, and costs society $110 billion annually in health and social costs.

Harm reduction is a theory that says because use of illegal drugs cannot be controlled by law enforcement, education, public-health intervention or other methods, we can at least reduce some of the harms associated with inevitable drug use. According to the theory of harm reduction, dispensing clean needles to addicts, for example, can reduce the incidence of AIDS; maintaining heroin addicts on heroin can reduce the amount of crime they would commit to maintain their habit.

The truth is that drug abuse wrecks lives. Addictive drugs were criminalized because they are harmful; they are not harmful because they were criminalized. If drugs were legalized, decriminalized or made more available through harm reduction policies, the costs to the individual and society would grow astronomically. It is shameful that more money is spent on illegal drugs than on art or higher education, that drug-exposed babies are born addicted and in pain, that thousands of adolescents lose their health and future to drugs.

Straight from the 'horses mouth'.

White House Drug Policy

[Guest]

quote:

---

First, calm down.

---

Really Shingen, go light up a duby and chill the f out dude!!! LOL

Sorry, couldn't resist!!!

Thought I''d try and throw in some humor, hope it worked!! LOL