Re: Drug Laws Kill - Proof

[Guest guest]

Here's a better solution than prohibition to the scourge of drugs across our

land:

Evolution. Let nature take its course. If addiction kills off a portion of

our population, so be it. Let the weaker members of the heard be culled, and

the ones more fit for survival, like Mona, carry the race.

[Guest guest]

Thank you Mona! I wonder what anyone ever did with this report. It almost seems as if it has been disregarded.

It isn't the first report to recommend ending drug prohibition. But, most politicians regard even whispering about decriminalization as political suicide. We are going to have to continue with an insane and counter-productive policy until we reach a point of critical mass where the sensible approach is the only thing left to do.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have, whether the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug ban.

It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug dealing has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition would cause major monetary disruptions,

The DEA has three main reasons for its fierce opposition to ending drug prohibition: (1) Jobs, (2)Jobs, and (3) Jobs.

and second, that so many drugs

could not possibly reach the United States if the government did not have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

Not really so. Interdiction is simply impossible, as every study of the matter has concluded. (Rand and others.) That is, it is impossible to interdict much more than 10-20% of incoming drugs unless we are going to maintain a naval blockade along both coasts, a very expensive proposition.

And we would also have to do a better job of controlling the Mexican border than the INS does in attempting to stop immigrants from gaining entry -- another very expensive proposition. And then there are the drugs that are flown in -- more expensive efforts required to halt that.

And, of course, that only addresses importation. Domestic manufacture of designer drugs, and cultivation of MJ crops, is a huge business. Indeed, some years cannabis is the biggest cash crop in California.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have, whether the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug ban.

It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug dealing has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition would cause major monetary disruptions,

The DEA has three main reasons for its fierce opposition to ending drug prohibition: (1) Jobs, (2)Jobs, and (3) Jobs.

and second, that so many drugs

could not possibly reach the United States if the government did not have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

Not really so. Interdiction is simply impossible, as every study of the matter has concluded. (Rand and others.) That is, it is impossible to interdict much more than 10-20% of incoming drugs unless we are going to maintain a naval blockade along both coasts, a very expensive proposition.

And we would also have to do a better job of controlling the Mexican border than the INS does in attempting to stop immigrants from gaining entry -- another very expensive proposition. And then there are the drugs that are flown in -- more expensive efforts required to halt that.

And, of course, that only addresses importation. Domestic manufacture of designer drugs, and cultivation of MJ crops, is a huge business. Indeed, some years cannabis is the biggest cash crop in California.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have, whether the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug ban.

It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug dealing has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition would cause major monetary disruptions,

The DEA has three main reasons for its fierce opposition to ending drug prohibition: (1) Jobs, (2)Jobs, and (3) Jobs.

and second, that so many drugs

could not possibly reach the United States if the government did not have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

Not really so. Interdiction is simply impossible, as every study of the matter has concluded. (Rand and others.) That is, it is impossible to interdict much more than 10-20% of incoming drugs unless we are going to maintain a naval blockade along both coasts, a very expensive proposition.

And we would also have to do a better job of controlling the Mexican border than the INS does in attempting to stop immigrants from gaining entry -- another very expensive proposition. And then there are the drugs that are flown in -- more expensive efforts required to halt that.

And, of course, that only addresses importation. Domestic manufacture of designer drugs, and cultivation of MJ crops, is a huge business. Indeed, some years cannabis is the biggest cash crop in California.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I think that if drugs were legalized the total amount spent on drugs would probably increase, not decrease.

The total amount spent on drugs would increase how? The price of drugs would fall, and so addicts would be no more inclined to burglarize homes to maintain a coke habit than they do to get a fifth of Jack s. And we would lose some 40% of the prison population, itself a monumentally huge savings. We'd need fewer cops, and would lose the DEA, as well as many prosecutors and judges.

Where do you see the increased expenditures coming from?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I think that if drugs were legalized the total amount spent on drugs would probably increase, not decrease.

The total amount spent on drugs would increase how? The price of drugs would fall, and so addicts would be no more inclined to burglarize homes to maintain a coke habit than they do to get a fifth of Jack s. And we would lose some 40% of the prison population, itself a monumentally huge savings. We'd need fewer cops, and would lose the DEA, as well as many prosecutors and judges.

Where do you see the increased expenditures coming from?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I think that if drugs were legalized the total amount spent on drugs would probably increase, not decrease.

The total amount spent on drugs would increase how? The price of drugs would fall, and so addicts would be no more inclined to burglarize homes to maintain a coke habit than they do to get a fifth of Jack s. And we would lose some 40% of the prison population, itself a monumentally huge savings. We'd need fewer cops, and would lose the DEA, as well as many prosecutors and judges.

Where do you see the increased expenditures coming from?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

.. It seems that, although Szasz believes that drugs should not be illegal, he is also against them being formally legalized in such a way that would inevitably require government regulation. Anyone care to elaborate?

Szaz is a fierce libertarian, as I am. He definitely advocates complete legalization of any and all substances that can be taken into the human body. Further, he would not want to see them available only by prescription, or regulated in such a way that they are de facto illegal. As to specific sorts of regulations he criticizes, I don't recall those offhand.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Joan's having raised Szasz's views on drug policy made me curious enough to determine the parameters of his views, and I found the introduction to Szazs' book OUR RIGHT TO DO DRUGS online. He completely opposes drug prohibition/criminalization. As I surmised in my first reply to Joan, he also objects to the prescription drug laws, and that is the kind of "regulation" he opposes as a "kinder, gentler" substitute for criminalization. Szasz believes -- as do I -- that one should be free to purchase any substance one wishes, over the counter. Thus, he writes as follows:

"I am familiar with recent essays arguing the impracticality of drug legalization. I share that view. The idea of selling cocaine as we do cucumbers while preserving our prescription laws restricting the sale of peftidlin is obviously absurd. But this proves only that unless we are willing to come to grips with the profoundly paternalistic implications and perilous anti-market consequences of prescription laws, which I discuss in this book (especially Chapter 7), we are doomed to impotence vis-a-vis our so-called drug problem. "The collectivist," warned A. V. Dicey in 1914, the year the first law protecting us from dangerous drugs was enacted, "never holds a stronger position than when he advocates the enforcement of the best ascertained laws of health." The result of our protracted drug-protectionist policy is that we now find it impossible to re-legalize drugs -- we lack both the popular will for it and the requisite legal-political infrastructure to support it. We long ago decided that it is morally wrong to treat drugs (especially foreign, plant-derived drugs) as a commodity. If we are satisfied with that state of affairs and its consequences, so be it. But I believe we ought to consider the possibility that a free market in drugs is not only imaginable in principle, but, given the necessary personal motivation of a people, is just as practical and beneficial as is a free market in other goods. Accordingly, I support a free market in drugs not because I think it is --at this moment, in the United States -- a practical policy, but because I believe it is right and because I believe that -- in the long run, in the United States -- the right policy may also be the practical policy. End"

[Guest guest]

Joan's having raised Szasz's views on drug policy made me curious enough to determine the parameters of his views, and I found the introduction to Szazs' book OUR RIGHT TO DO DRUGS online. He completely opposes drug prohibition/criminalization. As I surmised in my first reply to Joan, he also objects to the prescription drug laws, and that is the kind of "regulation" he opposes as a "kinder, gentler" substitute for criminalization. Szasz believes -- as do I -- that one should be free to purchase any substance one wishes, over the counter. Thus, he writes as follows:

"I am familiar with recent essays arguing the impracticality of drug legalization. I share that view. The idea of selling cocaine as we do cucumbers while preserving our prescription laws restricting the sale of peftidlin is obviously absurd. But this proves only that unless we are willing to come to grips with the profoundly paternalistic implications and perilous anti-market consequences of prescription laws, which I discuss in this book (especially Chapter 7), we are doomed to impotence vis-a-vis our so-called drug problem. "The collectivist," warned A. V. Dicey in 1914, the year the first law protecting us from dangerous drugs was enacted, "never holds a stronger position than when he advocates the enforcement of the best ascertained laws of health." The result of our protracted drug-protectionist policy is that we now find it impossible to re-legalize drugs -- we lack both the popular will for it and the requisite legal-political infrastructure to support it. We long ago decided that it is morally wrong to treat drugs (especially foreign, plant-derived drugs) as a commodity. If we are satisfied with that state of affairs and its consequences, so be it. But I believe we ought to consider the possibility that a free market in drugs is not only imaginable in principle, but, given the necessary personal motivation of a people, is just as practical and beneficial as is a free market in other goods. Accordingly, I support a free market in drugs not because I think it is --at this moment, in the United States -- a practical policy, but because I believe it is right and because I believe that -- in the long run, in the United States -- the right policy may also be the practical policy. End"

[Guest guest]

Joan's having raised Szasz's views on drug policy made me curious enough to determine the parameters of his views, and I found the introduction to Szazs' book OUR RIGHT TO DO DRUGS online. He completely opposes drug prohibition/criminalization. As I surmised in my first reply to Joan, he also objects to the prescription drug laws, and that is the kind of "regulation" he opposes as a "kinder, gentler" substitute for criminalization. Szasz believes -- as do I -- that one should be free to purchase any substance one wishes, over the counter. Thus, he writes as follows:

"I am familiar with recent essays arguing the impracticality of drug legalization. I share that view. The idea of selling cocaine as we do cucumbers while preserving our prescription laws restricting the sale of peftidlin is obviously absurd. But this proves only that unless we are willing to come to grips with the profoundly paternalistic implications and perilous anti-market consequences of prescription laws, which I discuss in this book (especially Chapter 7), we are doomed to impotence vis-a-vis our so-called drug problem. "The collectivist," warned A. V. Dicey in 1914, the year the first law protecting us from dangerous drugs was enacted, "never holds a stronger position than when he advocates the enforcement of the best ascertained laws of health." The result of our protracted drug-protectionist policy is that we now find it impossible to re-legalize drugs -- we lack both the popular will for it and the requisite legal-political infrastructure to support it. We long ago decided that it is morally wrong to treat drugs (especially foreign, plant-derived drugs) as a commodity. If we are satisfied with that state of affairs and its consequences, so be it. But I believe we ought to consider the possibility that a free market in drugs is not only imaginable in principle, but, given the necessary personal motivation of a people, is just as practical and beneficial as is a free market in other goods. Accordingly, I support a free market in drugs not because I think it is --at this moment, in the United States -- a practical policy, but because I believe it is right and because I believe that -- in the long run, in the United States -- the right policy may also be the practical policy. End"

[Guest guest]

> As requested, I am posting some support for Neil's and my claim that

drug

> laws kill far more people than do the prohibted substances. The

following is

> excerpted from an October, 1996 Report and Recommendation of the

Drug Policy

> Task Force undertaken by the New York County Lawyers Association.

The full

> document may be retrieved -- along with *beaucoup good information

on drugs

> and drug policy -- at DRCNet.org, and this particular report is

found in

> their Schaffer Library. Footnotes have been omitted:

Thank you Mona! I wonder what anyone ever did with this report. It

almost seems as if it has been disregarded.

[Guest guest]

I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have, whether

the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug ban.

It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug dealing

has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition

would cause major monetary disruptions, and second, that so many drugs

could not possibly reach the United States if the government did not

have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

> In a message dated 4/21/01 10:42:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > Thank you Mona! I wonder what anyone ever did with this report.

It

> > almost seems as if it has been disregarded.

> >

>

> It isn't the first report to recommend ending drug prohibition.

But, most

> politicians regard even whispering about decriminalization as

political

> suicide. We are going to have to continue with an insane and

> counter-productive policy until we reach a point of critical mass

where the

> sensible approach is the only thing left to do.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have, whether

the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug ban.

It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug dealing

has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition

would cause major monetary disruptions, and second, that so many drugs

could not possibly reach the United States if the government did not

have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

> In a message dated 4/21/01 10:42:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > Thank you Mona! I wonder what anyone ever did with this report.

It

> > almost seems as if it has been disregarded.

> >

>

> It isn't the first report to recommend ending drug prohibition.

But, most

> politicians regard even whispering about decriminalization as

political

> suicide. We are going to have to continue with an insane and

> counter-productive policy until we reach a point of critical mass

where the

> sensible approach is the only thing left to do.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have, whether

the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug ban.

It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug dealing

has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition

would cause major monetary disruptions, and second, that so many drugs

could not possibly reach the United States if the government did not

have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

> In a message dated 4/21/01 10:42:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

>

> > Thank you Mona! I wonder what anyone ever did with this report.

It

> > almost seems as if it has been disregarded.

> >

>

> It isn't the first report to recommend ending drug prohibition.

But, most

> politicians regard even whispering about decriminalization as

political

> suicide. We are going to have to continue with an insane and

> counter-productive policy until we reach a point of critical mass

where the

> sensible approach is the only thing left to do.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Kayleigh,

I think that if drugs were legalized the total amount spent on drugs

would probably increase, not decrease.

OTOH,there is quite a bit of circumstancial evidence that during the

Reagan years, the CIA allowed the contras to fund their anti-

Sandanista war with cocaine dollars. Similary with heroin from

Southeast Asia, earlier, and opium from Afghanistan later.

> > In a message dated 4/21/01 10:42:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> > ahicks@s... writes:

> >

> >

> > > Thank you Mona! I wonder what anyone ever did with this

report.

> It

> > > almost seems as if it has been disregarded.

> > >

> >

> > It isn't the first report to recommend ending drug prohibition.

> But, most

> > politicians regard even whispering about decriminalization as

> political

> > suicide. We are going to have to continue with an insane and

> > counter-productive policy until we reach a point of critical mass

> where the

> > sensible approach is the only thing left to do.

> >

> > --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Kayleigh,

I think that if drugs were legalized the total amount spent on drugs

would probably increase, not decrease.

OTOH,there is quite a bit of circumstancial evidence that during the

Reagan years, the CIA allowed the contras to fund their anti-

Sandanista war with cocaine dollars. Similary with heroin from

Southeast Asia, earlier, and opium from Afghanistan later.

> > In a message dated 4/21/01 10:42:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> > ahicks@s... writes:

> >

> >

> > > Thank you Mona! I wonder what anyone ever did with this

report.

> It

> > > almost seems as if it has been disregarded.

> > >

> >

> > It isn't the first report to recommend ending drug prohibition.

> But, most

> > politicians regard even whispering about decriminalization as

> political

> > suicide. We are going to have to continue with an insane and

> > counter-productive policy until we reach a point of critical mass

> where the

> > sensible approach is the only thing left to do.

> >

> > --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Are there any Szasz lovers left out there who might be able to

explain his position on legalization? I read a little something on

Peele's site about it, but that has been a while back and I was a

little unclear about it then. It seems that, although Szasz believes

that drugs should not be illegal, he is also against them being

formally legalized in such a way that would inevitably require

government regulation. Anyone care to elaborate?

Joan

[Guest guest]

Are there any Szasz lovers left out there who might be able to

explain his position on legalization? I read a little something on

Peele's site about it, but that has been a while back and I was a

little unclear about it then. It seems that, although Szasz believes

that drugs should not be illegal, he is also against them being

formally legalized in such a way that would inevitably require

government regulation. Anyone care to elaborate?

Joan

[Guest guest]

I see no reason that the amount spent on drugs would increase if drugs

were legal. Indeed, if they were legal, the market price would

decline, since no one would be paying for the risk involved in

marketing them. Perhaps you mean they would be heavily taxed to

discourage consumption, which is not only possible but likely, but

still, I can't see why the price would be above what it is now.

The second thing you say is along the lines of what I meant. I have

heard similar stories, and once talked to a former CIA agent who

confirmed what you are saying.

> Kayleigh,

>

> I think that if drugs were legalized the total amount spent on drugs

> would probably increase, not decrease.

>

> OTOH,there is quite a bit of circumstancial evidence that during the

> Reagan years, the CIA allowed the contras to fund their anti-

> Sandanista war with cocaine dollars. Similary with heroin from

> Southeast Asia, earlier, and opium from Afghanistan later.

[Guest guest]

I see no reason that the amount spent on drugs would increase if drugs

were legal. Indeed, if they were legal, the market price would

decline, since no one would be paying for the risk involved in

marketing them. Perhaps you mean they would be heavily taxed to

discourage consumption, which is not only possible but likely, but

still, I can't see why the price would be above what it is now.

The second thing you say is along the lines of what I meant. I have

heard similar stories, and once talked to a former CIA agent who

confirmed what you are saying.

> Kayleigh,

>

> I think that if drugs were legalized the total amount spent on drugs

> would probably increase, not decrease.

>

> OTOH,there is quite a bit of circumstancial evidence that during the

> Reagan years, the CIA allowed the contras to fund their anti-

> Sandanista war with cocaine dollars. Similary with heroin from

> Southeast Asia, earlier, and opium from Afghanistan later.

[Guest guest]

I see no reason that the amount spent on drugs would increase if drugs

were legal. Indeed, if they were legal, the market price would

decline, since no one would be paying for the risk involved in

marketing them. Perhaps you mean they would be heavily taxed to

discourage consumption, which is not only possible but likely, but

still, I can't see why the price would be above what it is now.

The second thing you say is along the lines of what I meant. I have

heard similar stories, and once talked to a former CIA agent who

confirmed what you are saying.

> Kayleigh,

>

> I think that if drugs were legalized the total amount spent on drugs

> would probably increase, not decrease.

>

> OTOH,there is quite a bit of circumstancial evidence that during the

> Reagan years, the CIA allowed the contras to fund their anti-

> Sandanista war with cocaine dollars. Similary with heroin from

> Southeast Asia, earlier, and opium from Afghanistan later.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have, whether

> the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug ban.

> It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug dealing

> has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition

> would cause major monetary disruptions, and second, that so many drugs

> could not possibly reach the United States if the government did not

> have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

There is a new book, reviewed in today's NYTimes Book review, about the

" prison industry, " which suggests that it is there mainly for the benefits

to local economies rather than for the purpose of deterring crime.

The book is " Going Up The River, " by ph T. Hallinan. The review is at

http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/22/reviews/010422.22massint.html

Of course the drug prohibition laws account for a big fraction of our prison

population.

And you also have this vast army of AA counselor-types who lost employment

opportunities when the insurance companies stopped paying for 28-day

programs, many of whom moved into the coerced-treatment field in the 90's.

Among other things they are a lobbying force which has an interest in

keeping drugs illegal.

Remember when we were discussing Oklahoma Governor Keating, and

somebody found a speech of his where he announced his latest and greatest

" get-tough-on-drugs-and-drunk-drivers " plan, sharing the platform with two

" consultants, " one of them Hazelden lobbyist Cope Moyers and the

other an old friend of Keating's who happened to be the CEO of a major

prison-for-profit corporation? That's an example of how economic interests

get translated into government action. The prison corporation executive

(whose name I have forgotten) had originally been in gov't/law enforcement

before moving into the " private " sector.

And then you have the South American drug cartels, with a combined annual

gross income which exceeds the defense budget of the USA. That's a lot of

money, and I have to believe that a chunk of that money finds its way into

the pockets of gov't and law enforcement people here.

Which brings up another reason to keep the drug war going, namely to keep

our armed forces employed.

I don't think that there is actually a great deal of direct government

involvement in promoting the importation of drugs, though, beyond some

bribery at borders and such. The demand is sufficent to account for the fact

that a lot of stuff gets in.

--wally

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> I wonder if any of you have ever asked yourselves, as I have, whether

> the government has any economic interest in continuing the drug ban.

> It seems to me that, first of all, the economic effect of drug dealing

> has become so huge that abandoning the policy of drug prohibition

> would cause major monetary disruptions, and second, that so many drugs

> could not possibly reach the United States if the government did not

> have some interest in protecting the drug trade.

There is a new book, reviewed in today's NYTimes Book review, about the

" prison industry, " which suggests that it is there mainly for the benefits

to local economies rather than for the purpose of deterring crime.

The book is " Going Up The River, " by ph T. Hallinan. The review is at

http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/22/reviews/010422.22massint.html

Of course the drug prohibition laws account for a big fraction of our prison

population.

And you also have this vast army of AA counselor-types who lost employment

opportunities when the insurance companies stopped paying for 28-day

programs, many of whom moved into the coerced-treatment field in the 90's.

Among other things they are a lobbying force which has an interest in

keeping drugs illegal.

Remember when we were discussing Oklahoma Governor Keating, and

somebody found a speech of his where he announced his latest and greatest

" get-tough-on-drugs-and-drunk-drivers " plan, sharing the platform with two

" consultants, " one of them Hazelden lobbyist Cope Moyers and the

other an old friend of Keating's who happened to be the CEO of a major

prison-for-profit corporation? That's an example of how economic interests

get translated into government action. The prison corporation executive

(whose name I have forgotten) had originally been in gov't/law enforcement

before moving into the " private " sector.

And then you have the South American drug cartels, with a combined annual

gross income which exceeds the defense budget of the USA. That's a lot of

money, and I have to believe that a chunk of that money finds its way into

the pockets of gov't and law enforcement people here.

Which brings up another reason to keep the drug war going, namely to keep

our armed forces employed.

I don't think that there is actually a great deal of direct government

involvement in promoting the importation of drugs, though, beyond some

bribery at borders and such. The demand is sufficent to account for the fact

that a lot of stuff gets in.

--wally