Monday, March 27, 2006

Prison & the War on Drugs: Just Say No

GUEST POST - by Hypatia (with contributions from Pete Guither)


Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind.

- Edward Gibbon: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire


And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up…too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.

- Rush Limbaugh, October 5, 1995

While the War on Terror (or "The Long War") preoccupies the nation, there's another war on an abstract noun ("The Other Long War") that continues to be fought against Americans: The War on Drugs. That war’s central weapon is prison, but the enemy is not the select substances on which the war is ostensibly declared. Rather, the guns are aimed at -- often enough, literally -- every citizen who acts as if the individual, as opposed to the state, should be deciding what to put into his or her body. The human costs of this “war” on citizens have been incalculable, primarily because of prison.

While the United States constitutes 5% of the world's population, this “land of the free” holds 25% of the world's prisoners – a third to a half are there for drug offenses . With all the talk of Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition, many overlook that we have a Gulag Prison System here at home, fueled by our drug laws.

Most Americans seldom think about or discuss penal policies in any systematic or focused way. That failure is itself a poltical/ethical crime, because prison and its uses is a consummately moral issue. Sentencing citizens to prison entails sending armed agents of the state after them, then placing them at the tender mercies of scalp-seeking prosecutors, and if convicted, locking them in cages and robbing them of their autonomy.

For us to collectively decide that the consensual, adult use or sale of intoxicants will be criminalized, means we are agreeing that hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans will experience life-destroying calamity. These POWs will be ripped from their communities -- and frequently from their children -- for years, decades and for life, pursuant to mandatory sentencing schemes as Draconian as those in any dictatorship; how else to characterize putting, e.g., non-violent, vegetarian 23-year-olds in prison for life for selling LSD at Grateful Dead concerts? (It is some small measure of progress that in New York, they recently did away with the life sentences for drug offenders.)

Instead of being with their families, these citizens will be confined among a population teeming with violent predators, under harsh and terrifying conditions. Conditions in which, especially for the disabled, their health often cannot be maintained, as this shameful example shows, as does the case of Lillie Blevins, a non-violent woman who died while serving her life sentence for conspiracy to sell crack cocaine.

As bad as the wretched attention to health, if not worse, is the fact that in many prisons drug-offender “criminals” cannot be (or are not) meaningfully protected from rape and assault. And the drug war is directly feeding prison rapes. Tom Cahill, President of Stop Prisoner Rape, declares:

I credit the war on drugs with the tremendous increase in prisoner rape. Most prison rape victims are in for minor nonviolent offenses. The victim profile is a young adult heterosexual male, maybe small or with a slight frame, confined for the first time for a minor victimless crime such as possession of a little too much marijuana -- and too poor to buy his freedom. . . .

This epidemic of prison rape is just one more way the war on drugs is causing much more harm than the drugs themselves. These men and boys who are raped in prison will usually return to the community far more violent and antisocial than before they were raped. Some of them will perpetuate the vicious cycle by becoming rapists themselves in a misguided attempt to "regain their manhood" in the same manner in which they believe it was "lost."

(Women drug offenders are raped as well, sometimes with tragic consequences.)

If most of us don’t ponder these brutal facts of prison life that often as we go about our daily lives, well, the mind will concentrate on it mightily if oneself or a family member is facing a drug conviction. At that point, HBO series about life in the slammer cease to constitute gripping, salacious entertainment, and become instead foreknowledge of an imminent, waking nightmare. Indeed, the soul-sickening dread of prison has induced suicides, for example, a married couple from the heartland who endangered the republic by growing marijuana plants in their home:

Last fall . . . Dennis and Denise Schilling of Waukesha, WI,… hung themselves in a Madison motel room after being threatened with prison sentences and the seizure of their home for growing marijuana. They, along with their 20-year-old son Joshua, had been arrested after a snitch and a narc bought a total of $120 worth of marijuana at the house. On September 25, five days after federal officials filed asset forfeiture papers against their home -- why the feds were involved with a penny-ante grow-up bust is yet to be explained -- the Schillings ended their misery.

(What do the feds say to themselves when they go to bed at night, one wonders? “Well, too bad they took it so hard, but those Schillings, they were such a menace?”)

But of all the under-reported tragic aspects of the drug war and prison, none is more poignant (and a source of outrage) than the children who have lost their parents, increasingly their mothers. The pleas from young sons and daughters to have their mother or father back can be simply heartbreaking. As can be the more elegantly drafted anguish of an adult child of a drug war victim, on the theme of visiting her father in his new “home”:

Knowing I am close to the solid, gray, steel door my heart pounds rapidly inside my chest. It jumps like a rabbit that has been caged up, then finally set free. This door is the entrance to a walk that consists of unkindness, coldness, and unhappiness. ... "Time is up, all inmates to the rear and all visitors to the front please." The men in crisp white shirts and flat gray pants look out into the room of smiles and those smiles quickly fade. I hug my father goodbye and a salty tear rolls down my cheek as I see my papa shed a tear of his own. He holds me tight and his mustache tickles my cheek. A smile is created. Remaining strong, I convince my legs to carry me past the rows of tables with chairs facing one another, all in a straight line.

The men in the crisp white shirts holler for us to say our goodbyes; if only they had to say goodbye as we do. I head towards the giant door that will take me on the walk, only this time it will be in reverse. I have no fears, just hope. Someday my papa will emerge into freedom with me, until then I will take this walk as often as needed, and I will remain strong.

Certainly one might think that in a political climate in which “family values” is such a pervasive trope, the public should be receptive to the passionate voice of a young man like Tyree Callahan, when he speaks on behalf of himself and his younger siblings whose father has been imprisoned since Tyree was 16 years old: "Drug war families want their loved ones back..."

And indeed, they do. Yet in this sweet land of liberty, in the name of a war on inanimate substances:

  • Renea Darby, a non-violent drug “mule” has never spent a free day with her 15-year-old son.


  • Ruth Carter is serving a 15 year, 7 month sentence on a drug conspiracy charge. While in prison and spending precious time away from her, Carter’s daughter was killed by a drunk driver (who she says spent a mere 8 months in prison).


  • Douglas Lamar Gray , a father and Vietnam War vet is serving a life sentence for the heinous crime of marijuana trafficking: Says Gray:

I was fined $25,000 and sent to the overcrowded maximum security prison in Springfield (Alabama) with murderers and violent criminals. When I was sentenced, my wife attempted suicide with a pistol because of the emotional and financial stress. Fortunately, she survived, but then filed for a divorce. I was an independent roofing contractor and owned my own business with six men working for me; and sometimes as many as 12. But now I have nothing except my 12-year-old son who needs me badly.

  • Loren Pogue never bought or used illicit drugs, but he sold some land to undercover federal narcotics agents who mentioned using it for drug trafficking, and so this "real estate agent, missionary, former serviceman, Mason, Shriner, Lions Club Member, American Legion, VFW, and past Director of a Children's Home" has been sentenced to prison for 22 years. "Five of Loren's children live over 3,000 miles from the prison in which he is held. He hasn't seen four of his children, or his wife in over 11 years [as of 2001]." This elderly enemy of the people has 27 children, 15 of whom are adopted.

The examples cited above could be reproduced by the tens of thousands: American parents, grandparents and otherwise productive citizens whose lives and families are destroyed by prison, because we have declared a “war” on plants, pills and powders. As G. Patrick Callahan, co-founder of the November Coalition hauntingly puts it:

    Our marriages rarely last, and prisoners are usually shipped far from their homes. Contact with our children is minimal and often lost. Within about two years the lives of all concerned are irrevocably altered, generally for the worst: wives divorce and remarry; children grow up. The prisoner watches it all from the glass coffin of a prison cell. Behind the wire we are subjected to unremitting harassment, degradation, danger and discomfort, separated from virtually everything that makes life worthwhile. The years pass, one into the next, and many men simply go around the bend.

    Drug addiction we are told – and it certainly is all too often true – can destroy a person. So to save us from ourselves, the government ruins millions of individual lives and those of their family members, by locking non-violent drug offenders in hellholes. Given that no sober citizen imbued with American values could see the moral sense in that, one might be forgiven for wondering what all the drug warriors have been smokin’.

    UPDATE (by Glenn): This comment from Hypatia, responding to the view that drug criminals get what they deserve because the harm is "self-inflicted," is highly worth reading.

    88 comments:

    1. Anonymous7:48 AM

      great post . . . americans are going to look back 50 years from now and look at our drug rohibition policies the way we look at slavery and segregation now, as well as alcohol prohibition. It is stupid, mean, vile, unjust and destructive. And most people support it.

      Congrats on a well-researched posts that focuses on an oft-overlooked part of this - the human cost to our "war", the absurdity of putting adults in cages for ingesting into their bodies the substances they choose to put there.

      ReplyDelete
    2. Anonymous8:49 AM

      I have often thought about the callousness and foolishness of excessive use of imprisonment in the US. Aside from issues relating to fair treatment of adults, the cruelty to completely innocent children is, as you say, injustice that should be addressed, not ignored.

      ReplyDelete
    3. Anonymous9:12 AM

      Good post. I always try to stuff the fact that I am a convicted felon to the back of my mind, all because I sold a quarter ounce of weed to a cop so I could pinch a joint. Thank goodness I never had to do any hard time. My fault sure, 13 years ago and it will it follow me for the rest of my days.

      Bummer is that after putting myself through grad school for two masters degrees with loans and manual labor, learning three new languages, and generally preparing for some kind of interesting job, a lot of outfits would consider me untouchable for the felony (I can forget security clearances, for instance).

      That's a slight problem compared to imprisonment, but still a stain that will stick to me.

      ReplyDelete
    4. If only they were smokin' something. They dabble in far darker spirits.

      Thanks for the great post.

      ReplyDelete
    5. Anonymous9:16 AM

      What am I doing up at 3:30 a.m.? Well, drinking tea and channeling Hypatia, I guess. Last night I typed out a comment and then shelved it, something I sometimes do. Maybe one out of ten or so. If you think the comments I post are bad...
      Anyway, when I read Hypatia’s post I wondered what the stimulus was that had set us both thinking along the same lines. Can’t think of a thing. Yeah, I’ve watched “OZ” [graphic (frontal male nudity) prison series originally on HBO] on dvd, but that was last Summer. Yeah, I have long thought that the war on drugs should be called the failure that it is and scrapped.
      Perhaps it is just that the parallels with the GWOT are so apt. Anyway, here is the post [yes, I cleaned it up a bit].


      I believe that, barring unusual circumstances, you can’t beat something with nothing. One could consider the movement to impeach Bush a trial run of the “notBush” approach to political power. “Hey, that guy is hairy and smelly and he does what he thinks is right to protect America and if you don’t like it - tough. We don’t like him. We want a touchy-feely guy who panders to our need for immediate gratification. Tell us that we can be safe without any torture, killing or disappointments. We want to pretend that it is 9/10 again in America.”
      Liberals want to do the GWOT like the right did the drug war. Ignore results, just be politically correct and always “do what’s right” and “follow the rules”.. If your efforts are a failure, at least it won’t be anyone’s fault. Millions may die? Oh, says you. Flying three airplanes into buildings is kindergarten. Getting a suitcase dirty bomb into NYC is so totally beyond the capability of jihadists... well, you all are a bunch of bed-wetters. We can too afford to model our war effort after our criminal justice system – look what a success that is. We like politicians who never talk about how they will get results in the GWOT. We like politicians who just say that they will “follow the rules” and “protect our Constitution.” Those who say that we need to make some compromises are just bed-wetters.
      Guess what? There appear to be many more “bed-wetters” out there than imagined. Congress is made up of mostly of bed-wetters. Thank God.

      I’m betting that a majority of Americans are too. That means that the Democrats (and the Republicans too) had best put up candidates that talk about how they intend to win the GWOT. And I am talking about results. The costs of another “war on drugs” is too great.

      ReplyDelete
    6. The war on drugs is one of the main sources of hypocricy. Never mind the Oxycontin-addicted bloviater Rush Limbaugh. How about this?
      As you may know, Canada has a much more liberal attitude towards soft drugs, and has been a hair's breadth away from legalising marijuana on several occasions, most recently in the last couple of years. In every instance, pressure from the U.S. has caused the Canadian government to cancel legislation to decriminalise or legalise this harmless substance. In the most recent case, the American ambassador threatened trade sanctions, claiming that border security would have to be increased, and all truck traffic across our mutual border inspected. With the majority of Canada's foreign trade being with the U.S., this would have been devastating for Canadian businesses.
      During this period, U.S. drug enforcement authorities targetted Canadian marijuana activist Marc Emery, arranging for his arrest and extradition to the U.S., where he faces hard time.
      Only months before Emery's arrest, another prominent case involving Canadian relations with the U.S. was in the news. That was the story of Illinois Air National Guard Major Harry Schmidt. Schmidt, you may recall, disobeying direct orders from controllers, attacked a Canadian contingency of troops near Kandahar in Afghanistan, killing four soldiers and wounding eight more. A military court investigating the incident gave Schmidt and his wingman, Maj. Umbach a mere slap on the wrist for this tragic and deadly error in judgement.
      The reason for the court's leniency? Schmidts responsibility for his own reckless behaviour was diminished by the fact that he had been issued amphetamine 'go pills' before the mission, which clouded his judgement and made him act in a more aggressive manner.

      Judge for yourself between these two cases:

      Marc Emery, charged with selling marijuana seeds over the internet, faces possible life imprisonment.

      Harry Schmidt was charged with four counts of manslaughter, and eight of aggravating assault, as well as, I think disobeying a direct command and dereliction of duty. All charges except the dereliction were dropped. The dereliction charge was then move from criminal to a 'non-judicial' forum (I don't really understand what that means, not being familiar with U.S. military legal procedures). Scmidt's case was resolved in July, 2004. He was put on half pay for two months.

      You have my permission to be as outraged by this as you deem appropriate.

      ReplyDelete
    7. Anonymous9:26 AM

      Outstanding piece. I live in Amsterdam and am able see from close up the merits of a "reality-based" approach to mind-altering substances. Sure, the situation here isn't ideal, but it is driven largely by pragmatic considerations, not morality. There is plenty of evidence in Netherlands and other EU countries that alternative approaches are viable, but American policy-makers aren't listening.

      ReplyDelete
    8. This still seems to be a third rail issue -- one of many that the Democrats are afraid of.

      ReplyDelete
    9. Anonymous9:43 AM

      I love asking Drug Warriors if thgey think Prohibition was right in the 1920's. As a rule, they say no. Then ask them about the current prohibition, and watch smoke come out of their ears. Gotta love cognitivie dissonance.

      ReplyDelete
    10. Hypatia's message:

      The Bush administrations use of the NSA for terrorist surveillance should be "criminalized", while selling or using illegal drugs should be "decriminalized".

      I agree that the examples cited in your post are sad, families torn apart, people being mistreated by fellow inmates etc. but the harm these individuals complain of is also self inflicted to a large extent.

      Let's compare our system with that of Singapore:

      "More than 400 prisoners have been hanged in Singapore [population of just over four million] since 1991 -- a significant percentage of foreign nationals -- Most of those executed were convicted of drug trafficking"

      There has to be some way to protect young people from others that use or sell drugs. If not prison, then what would you suggest the government do to deter drug dealers?

      ReplyDelete
    11. Anonymous10:24 AM

      Fly, why don't we hang those who provide alcohol to teenagers? It's the same thing - selling drugs to our children.

      I'm not really disagreeing with you, just pointing out one of the gulfs of logic in the whole war on drugs.

      My wife worked as a provider in a women's prison - not that kind of provider! Jeebus, cut it out. No, she was a medical provider, so, while she did dispense drugs, their mind altering qualities were a bug, not a feature - unless you were an inmate. :)

      Most of the women in her prison were there on drug related charges. Yes, it might have been theft or even armed robbery, but the reason was drugs. Putting people in prison doesn't actually seem to work real well. But we aren't really and outcome based society, are we?

      Hypatia, nice to see an article by you, and on a war other than the Terra War.

      Jake

      ReplyDelete
    12. Thank you, thank you, thank you for shedding light on one aspect of our shameful prison system. When Abu Ghraib hit the fan I thought that maybe there would be some light shone on our own Abu Ghraibs all over the country but nothing happened. In fact when that connection was brought up it was dismissed because it threatened to minimize or distract from Abu Ghraib. Stupid. Torture is torture.

      ReplyDelete
    13. Anonymous10:46 AM

      Thank you for posting this. Another little piece to look at is the companies that profit by building and running these prisons. It's a huge scam.

      I'd also like to see someone take a look at the way people's horror of child and elder abuse is used to make prosecutors look good, and swell the ranks of workers in the "justice" system. For example, there still are people in prison in Massachusetts on long-discredited charges of satanic ritual abuse.

      I've read that something like 10% of the U.S. population has been caught up in the criminal system at one time or another. Think about it: What is a criminal, really? By my definition, a society in which 10% of the population were actual criminals would long since have destroyed itself.

      ReplyDelete
    14. Anonymous10:55 AM

      I was thinking about this in light of the fact that New York City is implementing a plan to hire 1200 new officers, as well as increasing the presence of surveillance equipment throughout the city.

      At a certain point, is the average citizen not made more safe, but less, by the increase of police powers and police presence?

      In order to justify the increase in the police force, there must be an increase in crime, real or perceived, and so behaviors that are not criminal must be made so.

      Then you make an industry out of imprisoning people, and taking their homes and property (by means of ridiculously archaic and fetished in rem proceedings) and that becomes the jusfitication for imprisoning more and more. Establish quotas for arrests, etc. etc.

      Then add in a new war on 'terror...'

      ReplyDelete
    15. Anonymous11:23 AM

      They Fly says:
      I agree that the examples cited in your post are sad, families torn apart, people being mistreated by fellow inmates etc. but the harm these individuals complain of is also self inflicted to a large extent .


      So was Abdul Rahman's harm "self-inflicted" -- the man who had faced death from the Afghanis for the “crime” of converting to Christianity. Try being a Xian or practicing Jew openly in Iran.

      Human being have a religious impulse, and banning dissident beliefs is a folly that will always create "criminals." Human beings have also always sought intoxicants, and will sell and use them, regardless of the law. These are givens, and so passing penal laws against certain religious beliefs or the use and sale of intoxicants means agreeing to imprison (or even execute) people for holding religious belief or using/selling intoxicants. How is that moral or sensible?

      In the U.S., the vast majority of people do not refrain from murdering becasue they fear prosecution; they are acculturated to believe it is wrong, and don't do it.But many, many people don't think smoking a weed or sniffing the powder of a plant is a "crime," because it just doesn't feel like one. And I'll bet everyone here has either used some of the illicit substances, or has close family members or friends who have -- we don't think of them as criminals who ought to be in prison. Passing Draconian laws prohibiting behaviors that millions upon millions of Americans have engaged in -- including George W. Bush -- is just absurd. We would not elect a murderer or rapist to the presidency, but even most of the worst Bush-haters understood that a past which included coke use is just not truly criminal, no matter what the law says.

      So why do we lock up those who are caught and sanction them as we would the worst violent predators? It is nuts, and morally obscene.

      Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.
      Abraham Lincoln,
      December 1840

      ReplyDelete
    16. Great post, Hypatia. Walter Cronkite recently posted an essay on the same subject at Huffington Post that I thought was particularly poignant:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walter-cronkite/telling-the-truth-about-t_b_16605.html

      Jeff

      ReplyDelete
    17. Anonymous11:46 AM

      anon writes: ummer is that after putting myself through grad school for two masters degrees with loans and manual labor, learning three new languages, and generally preparing for some kind of interesting job, a lot of outfits would consider me untouchable for the felony (I can forget security clearances, for instance).

      That's a slight problem compared to imprisonment, but still a stain that will stick to me.


      Not so slight; it is an independent outrage, and the over-shadowing horror of all those incarcerated should not drown out the harms caused by drug convictions, even when no time is served. You could not obtain a student loan today -- tho you could if your conviction had been for sodomizing a toddler. Our government has decided that a drug conviction should foreclose an education and it cut off student loans for drug "criminals."

      Insanity, I tell you.

      Daniel w. Gerous: You have my permission to be as outraged by this as you deem appropriate.

      Don't even get me started. John Walters' (current "Drug Czar") fulminations against Canada are enough to make one's head explode. I chose to limit my discussion in this post to prison, but the foreign policy distortions driven by the war on (some) drugs are legion. However, I (or Pete Guither who assisted me, and who is working on what will primarily be his drug war post) will be posting here on other aspects of the issue, possibly on that subject.

      John Emerson: This still seems to be a third rail issue -- one of many that the Democrats are afraid of.

      Oddly, sometimes it has been Republicans who are better on drug policy. Henry Hyde has written a terrific little book on the outrage of asset forfeitures driven by our drug laws (see the example of the Schillings in my above post), and called a decade ago for a calm discussion of alternatives to the drug war. Charles Rangel appeared on PBS in the 90s to disagree with William F. Buckley that decriminalization ought to be considered.

      Of course, I think the Dems are hampered by the "only Nixon could go to China" syndrome. Democrats risk being tarred with "soft on crime" accusations that Republicans are more generally immune to.

      Either way, it is imperative to move past all the nonsense, and have a sensible national discussion about drug policy. One DEA agent told an anti-prohibition activist that it might take imprisoning 2.7 million American drug users/sellers to "win" the war.

      It is a question that should be asked of every drug warrior who wants to keep locking folks up: how many Americans do we have to throw into prison, before we "win" the war? Incarcerating them at rates that makes us the leader in the world for imprisoning its citizens hasn't worked yet, so how many more? (And how will we pay for it -- the prison-industrial complex is VERY expensive.)

      Make them answer that -- something they almost never want to do, becasue it renders obvious the absurd cruelty of their position.

      ReplyDelete
    18. Anonymous11:56 AM

      The Fly said...
      There has to be some way to protect young people from others that use or sell drugs. If not prison, then what would you suggest the government do to deter drug dealers?


      Legalize it all and then regulate the shit out of it. My two cents.

      I have never been much of a drug user - nothing "harder" than pot and even that use was limited but I do know one thing... I do know that when I was a kid it was much easier to purchase drugs than cigarettes or alcohol.

      This is just one more reason to get rid of the cons. We get rid of them and we get rid of their idea of "family values." Perhaps then we will be able to make the rational and sensible choice to do away with the "war on drugs" and have these idiotic laws rewritten.

      Hypatia, as a Libertarian, I was wondering where you might stand on heavy regulation of drugs? I am assuming you would prefer to legalize it all and let "market forces" sort everything out but would you choose regulation or none?

      Good post. Thanks for the info and the Limbaugh quote. It is always nice to see the hypocrisy of the true evil-do'ers.

      ReplyDelete
    19. Anonymous12:01 PM

      I wouldn't have a problem with the war on drugs if it had been equally applied to the chimperor and any number of others with the socio-economic means to escape the legal consequences.

      If the laws and legal rambifications were equally applied across ALL Americans -- THERE WOULD BE NO WAR ON DRUGS because the republicans would DEMAND the Government to stay out of our pesonal lives.

      ReplyDelete
    20. Anonymous12:08 PM

      RH writes: Hypatia, as a Libertarian, I was wondering where you might stand on heavy regulation of drugs? I am assuming you would prefer to legalize it all and let "market forces" sort everything out but would you choose regulation or none?

      Well, it can often be relevant that I am a lower-case "L" libertarian, meaning, not doctrinaire about it. I don't think, for example, that the Pure Food and Drug Act is an example of Leviathan running amok.

      The growing ranks of those who oppose criminalizing drug use/sale, and prison as the primary tool for addressing drugs, can start to fracture when it gets to alternative schemes. Certainly I think cannabis should be as feely available to the public as is alcohol, and I'm largely persuaded the same for cocaine. The opiates are a bit trickier, since heroin is the most addictive drug on the planet, and even I balk at the idea you should be able to pick it up w/ a six-pack at the 7-11. (One option could be to allow physicians to legally prescribe to addicts, and the horrors the drug war imposes on physicians is yet another post.)

      But no matter what, it is imperative that the nation have a discussion about drug policy, and look closely at the lives ruined when drugs are criminalized and hundreds of thousands of citizens therefore end up in prison, often serving terms longer than those imposed on violent predators. Whatever other approach is moral and sensible, the current one decidedly is not.

      ReplyDelete
    21. Anonymous12:48 PM

      Well, you all know I suffer from an overactive "outrage" gland, but at least it's consistent.

      I am "outraged" that the person who wrote this post is an enthusiastic supporter of Samuel Alito, one of the most shockingly vicious, brutal Enforcers in the War On Drugs.

      Hate the hanging, but idolize the hoister, eh?

      Sign me, Out. Of. Here.

      ReplyDelete
    22. Anonymous12:52 PM

      I am "outraged" that the person who wrote this post is an enthusiastic supporter of Samuel Alito, one of the most shockingly vicious, brutal Enforcers in the War On Drugs.

      I am "outraged" that someone like Eyes Wide Open, who claims to oppose tyranny, wants judges to simply ignore the law, and enforce their own version of what's right and wrong.

      Sam Alito doesn't write the laws. He didn't invent the legal prohibition against durgs, nor the criminal sentences required to be imposed. That was done by the elected representatives of the American people.

      Only a fascist would blame Sam Alito for DOING HIS JOB AND ENFORCING THE LAW. Only a tyrant would want Sam Alito to ignore laws that he doesn't like and - in his capacity as a judge - refuse to apply the laws he thinks are unjust.

      Blaming judges for APPLYING the laws which are democratically enacted, and wanting them to break the law by ignoring the laws they dislike, is about as tyrannical as it gets.

      Anyone who thinks that way has no business holding themselves out as a defender of liberty or the rule of law

      ReplyDelete
    23. Anonymous12:59 PM

      Hypatia writes:

      "Human beings have a religious impulse."

      some[1]
      (adjective) 1 : being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing < some person knocked>; 2 a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied < some gems are hard>;

      Some. That's the definition of the word.

      Don't suppose you'll go back and correct your post, however. You'd prefer to ascribe your own "impulse" to substitute mysticism for reason to everyone.

      ReplyDelete
    24. Anonymous1:16 PM

      A timely piece. Here in Alaska, cannabis is decriminalized. The state court has ruled that the privacy clause in the State constitution outweighs the need to enforce anything under 4oz in the home.

      Last year the AG tried to recrim. He lost the case in court. Now, Gov. Frank Murkowski is again trying to recrim making under 4oz a misdemeanor and over a felony.

      If I can't be free on the last frontier, in the land of the free home of the brave...can I be free anywhere?

      And why is Gov. Murkowski wasting taxpayer money on a grossly unpopular criminilzation attempt, which has already been ruled unconstitutional. This is your modern GOP, authoritarian corporatists.

      ReplyDelete
    25. Anonymous1:19 PM

      EWO writes: Don't suppose you'll go back and correct your post, however. You'd prefer to ascribe your own "impulse" to substitute mysticism for reason to everyone.

      You presume quite a bit. If it matters, I'm an atheist, and have long been so.

      But as a sociolgical/anthropological/evolutionary biological matter, there is much evidence that human beings are hard-wired to seek metaphysical, supernatural answers to Ultimate Questions. I find this evidence persuasive. Even if Ayn Rand thinks all religious belief is evil and immoral.

      In any event, it makes no more sense to lock up people for their metaphysical beliefs, than it does for acting on the nearly universal interest in intoxicants.

      As for the Alito issues you raise -- what Ellen said. (Which is not to say that I approve of the judiciary's contracting the 4th Am and other constitutional protections every time a drug case hits their docket -- I don't. But I also don't scream about impending police states when I think their ruling is actually one that could be reasonably arrived at, regardless of the context.)

      ReplyDelete
    26. Anonymous1:19 PM

      Ellen said...

      Ellen, don't be an idiot. You think the country should still be segregated then? Every judge is an "activist" judge. You defend Alito because he is an activist for your ideology. You really need to wake up and accept reality.

      ReplyDelete
    27. Ellen,

      I'm not sure what you think fascism is, but from what you wrote, you have it wrong. Certainly one cannot critisize a judge for following existing laws, however it may be the case that Alito consistently opted for rulings that favoured harsh sentences, and strict enforcement. They are called "judges" for a reason, as they are expected to exercise judgement. If Alito is sending people away on maximum sentences for non-violent drug crime, it is definitely valid to critique him on that ground, your hysterics notwithstanding. Saying that a judge should be lenient where legally permissible because it is increasingly evident that the laws are backward and ineffective is not the first step into totalitarianism, and I'm confused as to how you could connect the two. It's closer to anarchy than fascism, and not very close to either.

      Or would you prefer all existing laws be enforced absolutely without judgement? When was justice ever as simple as a rule-book?

      Eyes, please outline how Alito is among the worst drug enforcers. None of the material I can find on him says much about him and drugs other than the much discussed 10 year old strip search incident (reprehensible, but not really conclusive of his views on drugs).


      As to the post itself, EXCELLENT. I have long thought that prison rape is a huge injustice and very sad that more people are not outraged by it. We sentence people to hard time, but unless we're willing to pass criminal laws that indicate the punishment for offences may include being sodomized, then we need to put a stop to it. I feel sad that even people like Jon Stewart makes cracks about the republicans going to jail as to whether "Duke" cunningham, or "Scooter" libby would be bottoms or tops. Neither man should be raped for their crimes.

      The corollary of the war on drugs being a travesty in execution and results, is also well taken.

      Incidentally, as most drug offenders would likely vote democratic, it is no coincidence to me that republicans are so keen on revoking voting rights from convicted felons (even ones who have served their time). Disenfranchisement of these people is a contributing factor to the slowness of elected politicians in taking up their cause. They are a constituency that largely cannot vote, and as such have no elected voice.

      ReplyDelete
    28. Anonymous1:26 PM

      And from the other side of the spectrum, an opinion piece in today's Arizona Daily Star holds that all drug dealers and gang members should be treated as "domestic terrorists" and the Patriot Act should be used against them! The author is a "teacher" at a local high school and an adjunct instructor in "political science" at a local community college...

      Excerpt:
      ...Currently, many of these criminals are being freed due to loopholes in the law. The Patriot Act would make it easier to round up and neutralize this destructive group.

      Of course, the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies would decry this as an infringement on the terrorists' "rights."

      While the ACLU has done some good in keeping the government at bay in some instances, it needs to rethink its position on this issue. Remember, giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a crime, also. It's called treason."


      Mind-boggling isn't it? Treat "gang members" as domestic terrorists, round them up, and neutralize them!

      Some people have never heard of the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty," have they? They just don't seem to comprehend that "terrorists," whether suicide bombers, drug dealers, or gang members, don't make themselves known by their alien orange and purple speckled eyes. That's what courts are about, trying to determine who the criminals are, and who the criminals aren't. What's so hard about this concept?

      ReplyDelete
    29. Anonymous1:31 PM

      Years ago, called to jury duty, the case was against an individual who tried to sell marijuana. When chosen to be questioned, I told the judge I was against putting anyone in prison for use or sale of intoxicants. Of course I was promptly released, which I regretted. If you are called, please consider taking the same approach as an protest, and mention that you are protesting.

      ReplyDelete
    30. Good post. I'm with Mill - the only legitimate use of force is to prevent someone from harming someone else. Enforcing morality is an illigitimate use of force.

      Also, I'm not sure where I read this (I believe it was in THe Economist) but there are researchers who believe the volume of people prosecuted war on drugs has put an undue stress on our legal system which has corrupted the process of justice. - I'll see if I can dig the issue up.

      Mike Levine, a former covert drug enforcement agent, not only thinks the drug war is a failure, he believes is a purposeful failure.

      When President Nixon first declared war on drugs in 1971, there were less than a half million hard-core addicts in the entire nation, most of whom were addicted to heroin with the problem being largely centered in inner city areas, the largest percentage of which were all found in the New York City metropolitan area. Only two federal agencies were charged with any significant enforcement of the drug laws—the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and US Customs. Two agencies that were greater enemies to each other than they would ever be to any drug cartel. The total drug war budget was less than $100 million.



      Three decades later, despite the expenditure of $1 trillion in federal and state tax dollars, the number of hard-core addicts is shortly expected to exceed 5 million. Our nation has become the Wal-Mart of the drug world with a wider variety and more drugs available at cheaper prices than ever before. The problem now not only affects every town and hamlet on the map, it is difficult to find a family anywhere that is not somehow affected. There are now fifty-five federal and military agencies involved in federal drug enforcement alone (not counting state and local agencies) and US military troops are now invading South and Central American nations under the banner of drug war. The federal drug war budget alone (not counting state and municipal budgets) is now well over $20 billion a year, and my personal quest to find one individual anywhere in the world who could honestly testify that the trillion-dollar , US war on drugs had somehow saved him or her from the white menace has thus far been fruitless.



      Do you need a cop to tell you that this is evidence of an overwhelming fraud? If your stockbroker invested your money the way our elected leaders have done with our Drug War Monty dollars, you’d have jailed or shot him before 1972, yet the game continues.



      Why?



      Because mainstream media, as they did during the Vietnam War, shills us, by means of an incessant flow of fill-in-the-blanks bullshit “victory” stories into believing that Drug War Monty is a real war that our leaders intend to win. Media shills, which now includes Hollywood and “entertainment” television and the publishing industry, are continuously conning us into believing that, if in a fit of sanity, we really tried to end the costly and deadly fraud, some unspeakable horror, like Mexican and Colombian drug dealers led by the latest Media created “Pablo Escobar” invading across our (for ever) insufficiently protected borders to force-feed our kids heroin and cocaine. We might even have to arm the Partnership for a Drug Free America with missiles and rockets.



      Unless of course our kids “Just say No” as Nancy Reagan’s billion dollar media boondoggle campaign taught them.



      And when mainstream media hasn’t directly shilled us into supporting Drug War Monty, as they do to this day, they have aided in its perpetuation with their censorship, by conscious omission, of scandalous events that— had they been reported with the fervor the Washington Post showed during the Watergate era—would have brought the whole deadly and costly charade crumbling to the ground three decades ago. I know this first hand because I took part in some of the most significant of those events either as a federal agent, and/or court qualified expert witness, and/or a journalist.

      ReplyDelete
    31. Anonymous2:01 PM

      Hypatia, thanks for this post. As someone with a misdemeanor conviction and a loved one in prison as we speak, for selling small amounts of marijuana, it gives me a lot of comfort and hope that there are people out there who agree that this punishment is inhumane and illogical. We both recently graduated with honors from college, but because of the (only) substance we chose to ingest, and to help a small circle of friends obtain in a non-threatening environment, the rest of our lives will have a cloud over them. We spent thousands of dollars defending ourselves--only to have the state's attorney tell us that because the case had garnered publicity and it was an election year, someone would have to do jail time. In other circumstances, he would have made a deal, and I'd be able to sleep at night without worrying that my fiance is being beaten or raped by the real criminals they've locked him in there with. And our case is just one of many, many like it. Thanks for shedding some light into our dark place.

      ReplyDelete
    32. Really good post Hypatia. You mentioned New York, and the recent progress. It is great that the state has done away with the mandatory life-sentance under the Rockefeller Drug Laws; however, not enough has been done. The laws were designed in such a way to attempt to bring down the higher-ups in the drug game by targetting the lower level dealers. This is one of the huge miscalculations of the war on drugs. Attacking the lower level dealers has done nothing to reign in the higher-ups, and has simply led to further repression of a repressed class.

      ReplyDelete
    33. Anonymous2:15 PM

      Well, this is harder than it looks. My daughter is a heroin addict. She went into rehab last year about this time and emerged determined to stay clean. Which she did for about 6 months. Then relapsed last Dec. and had the misfortune to get busted. She's been an addict for about 13 years and this is her third trip to rehab and her first bust.

      On the one hand, a prison sentence would destroy her. Even the bust is going to do very bad things to her chances of ever getting her life together, unless we can maneuver to get it CWAF-ed and she stays clean for the required period.

      But here's the other thing: like I say, she's been to rehab 3 times and each time our hope that she'll finally turn the corner on this thing has ultimately been dashed. But I've never seen a transformation like the one since this bust. It really seems to have got through to her at a deeper level even than living homeless for 3 months did or any of the other "bottoming out" experiences she's had.

      So I don't know. You can't imagine how painful it is to have your kid going through this stuff unless you've experienced it. I've encountered my share of bad crap in life but absolutely nothing compares.

      It's conceivable to me that if it were legal, a lot of the horrors--the stealing, the lying, the social stigma--would go away. Maybe, maybe not (they say a heroin addict is someone who will steal your wallet and then help you look for it).

      But when Hypatia says this--If most of us don’t ponder these brutal facts of prison life that often as we go about our daily lives, well, the mind will concentrate on it mightily if oneself or a family member is facing a drug conviction--I have to say that it has concentrated my daughter's mind mightily, but not in the way this statement implies. It's on balance been pretty positive.

      I will also say, though, that the thought of our first real court date coming up on 4/11 makes me almost wretch with anxiety. As a father, I can't conceive of actual criminal conviction and imprisonment as anything but an unendurable compounding of all the agonies we've been through and all the problems of self-esteem and emotional stability that have led to her drug use--let alone the fact that there's a large physiological component she's genuinely not responsible for.

      But objectively, it does seem to have had an effect on her that nothing else so far has achieved.

      ReplyDelete
    34. Anonymous2:28 PM

      *(*

      I agree that the drug war requires modification, but I think there are bigger fish to fry right now than fixing this (like saving our Democracy). Let's not get sidetracked by less threatening issues. On the other hand:

      Hypatia said:

      But many, many people don't think smoking a weed or sniffing the powder of a plant is a "crime," because it just doesn't feel like one. And I'll bet everyone here has either used some of the illicit substances, or has close family members or friends who have -- we don't think of them as criminals who ought to be in prison.

      There is a huge differnece between using and dealing. People don't go to jail for long periods of time for this (unless they have committed other crimes).

      So Hypatia, are you defending the users or the dealers and the enablers of the dealers? Does that matter to you?

      ReplyDelete
    35. Anonymous2:32 PM

      I'd like to point out that there's another element of failure to the 'war on drugs'; one admittedly not as grave as those outlined in the post itself but there all the same: the fact that criminalization of drugs is a proven practical as well as a moral failure.

      Take the current fast-rising drug of choice in the midwest: Crystal Meth. This poison can be cooked up in one's kitchen provided one can get the necessary ingredients, one of which is ephedrene, which can most easily be acquired in cold medicine.

      Attempting to cut down on the spread of Meth, several state governments I understand are attempting to or have actually passed measures regulating *cold medicine*. Such measures to the best of my knowledge have done nothing to cut down the growth and spread of Meth anywhere in the country. I leave it to the reader to imagine the direction this insanity can lead should it become national policy that cold medicine be deemed a 'controlled substance'.

      Invariably there will be some chemist or researcher smart enough to find a way to manufacture some newer, more dangerous drug using 'non-addictive' substances, I'm sure. We've seen it with the spread Meth taking place right now.

      Can someone please tell me how criminalizing off-the-shelf medicines stops anything other than improving our health or that of our children?

      ReplyDelete
    36. Anonymous2:37 PM

      DrBB,
      Thanks for your comment, and your willingness to be open to the idea of reform. I often hear from families of drug addicts, who, like you, are torn, yet think that incarceration may be a method for dealing with addiction.

      If prohibition could actually be crafted to only go after those who would be helped by prison (or the fear of prison), that might be a good argument. Unfortunately, nobody has created a prohibition model that is that narrowly tailored, so the harm caused to others far outweighs the potential for good to an individual addict.

      There are other factors where prohibition actually makes things worse for loved ones addicted to drugs:

      * Criminalization of drugs adds a stigma to drug abuse that often prevents people from seeking help. It is easier to get friends to help you quit smoking cigarettes, or attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, than to ask for help in kicking an illegal drug habit.

      * Stigma can also interfere with seeking medical attention in the case of an overdose or severe reaction. Someone who would not hesitate to rush a friend with alcohol poisoning to the emergency room, may wait a dangerous time considering what to do with a friend who has overdosed.

      * The current lack of any regulation of drugs increases the risk of tainted drugs and uncertain potency, which can lead to overdoses and other problems.

      * The resistance to providing clean syringes to drug addicts increases AIDS and other blood-born diseases.

      * Current law in many cases prevents organizations and individuals from pursuing other harm-reduction activities, such as providing testing kits to make sure people know what they're taking.

      * Criminal drug dealers, whose business is made profitable by prohibition, want to hook clients in order to obtain future profits.

      * With illegal drugs, the drug purchaser is put into a situation of dealing with criminals, and is thus more likely to be involved in violent and dangerous situations.

      ReplyDelete
    37. Anonymous2:41 PM

      DrBB writes:But when Hypatia says this--If most of us don’t ponder these brutal facts of prison life that often as we go about our daily lives, well, the mind will concentrate on it mightily if oneself or a family member is facing a drug conviction--I have to say that it has concentrated my daughter's mind mightily, but not in the way this statement implies. It's on balance been pretty positive.

      That is a powerful point, and I’ve encountered it before. But as you yourself note, prison would destroy her, and the fact is, if she relapses again, she could end up there yet – and prisons are teeming with drugs, dirty needles, and the diseases those entail.

      Please don’t think I dismiss your plight lightly. Nine years ago (today, as it happens) my 19-year-old son died in a motor vehicle accident (that involved no mood-altering substances). It was the most devastating event of my life, and yet, there are times I consider it a severe mercy.

      At the time, I was practicing law in MI, and that state’s drug laws rival NY’s for demonic harshness. My son had never met an intoxicant he did not like, and he and his pals sold pot and coke one unto the other, making them dealers in the eyes of the law. I begged, I pleaded, I ranted with horror stories about prison, but to no avail.

      If he were not ashes now, I believe he would be rotting in prison. Something is very wrong when a mother comes to conclude her son’s excessive interest in intoxicants could land him in a hellhole for decades, and that thus he might well be better off dead.

      I don’t typically invoke my child’s case in these discussions, but your own situation is moving, and I wanted you to know why even tho I do not find it reason to employ prison as a means of controlling drugs, I am not lacking in empathy – as a human being and all political considerations aside – for what you are going through.

      ReplyDelete
    38. Anonymous2:50 PM

      Heads-up: Sherrod Brown, who made blog headlines, anyway, for squeezing Paul Hackett out of the Ohio Senate race, isn't even in the Senate yet but has come out against censure:

      "It just takes us off discussions we ought to be having in this country on issues that really matter in people's lives," said Rep. Sherrod Brown, a liberal Democrat from Ohio who is running for Senate.

      From VichyDems

      ReplyDelete
    39. The opiates are a bit trickier, since heroin is the most addictive drug on the planet, and even I balk at the idea you should be able to pick it up w/ a six-pack at the 7-11

      Actually, that would be nicotine. There was a great deal of concern in this country when Vietnam vets who had been using heroin came back. They kicked the heroin, but they still smoke.

      Cocaine is problematic for the same reason alcohol is. Other people suffer. With opiates, the other people suffering thing (like AIDS) stems from its illegality. But the fact that we can tolerate (or have found we can't stop) alcohol abuse takes out pretty much every argument against legalizing pretty much everything. Alcohol kills many more people in a day than marijuana does in a decade--and those people are often not the one using the alcohol.

      There's every weekend's worth of assault to tote up as well.

      ReplyDelete
    40. When the woman who witnessed her step-daughter be struck and killed by the drunk driver read her letter to the court at the man's sentencing, she seemed like a typical mom, her life seemingly together until the day she witnessed the tragedy. She choked back tears and had no idea that Mother Against Drunk Driving would eventually publish her letter in their magazine.
      What the readers of the MADD newsletter didn't know when they read this woman's letter was about a year before she wrote it, she was laying on the floor of the jail, quivering from heroine withdrawal as her public defender, me, tried to interview her.
      The woman who wrote the letter, who witnessed the drunk driving accident was on probation for theft when she wrote it, and she also plead guilty to drugged driving since, when the police picked her up, she was strung out.
      What transformed the woman from quivering on the jail floor to writing articles in MADD's newsletter? One lucky break.

      I was talking to a woman who told me she was five years sober from crack addiction and that she conducted AA/NA meetings at the jail. Offhandedly I asked her to look in on my client, Teresa, adding that she was probably a lost cause, but that she wasn't always this way.

      The woman I talked to met Teresa in jail and even picked Teresa up on her release date,taking her straight to an AA meeting and agreeing to act as her sponsor, to help her get back on her feet.

      When I saw Teresa in court, months after this, the change was amazing. She looked like a different person and even the hardened judge was shocked at teh transformation.

      So, how do we duplicate this story and turn a junkie into a productive citizen, who writes letters that MADD publishes in its newsletter? I'm not sure but I know building on AA/NA, on free sponsorship, on drug courts and on people who give a shit about other people are a good start. Short term incarceration is often a good start too, especially if incentives to avoid more jail in the future are incorporated.

      One of my clients told me that when they asked her to "just stop using" without offering her treatment was like me to "just stop breathing." "After all." she said, "it's something I don't know how to do without."

      Jailing addicts and small dealers for decades makes about as much sense.

      ReplyDelete
    41. Anonymous4:20 PM

      yankeependragon said...
      Can someone please tell me how criminalizing off-the-shelf medicines stops anything other than improving our health or that of our children?


      I am with you. The obvious answer to your question is that it doesn't. At least not in the long run. There have been some arrests related to these new rules but it is a marginally effective idea at best and obviously just another band-aid.

      I am in the Midwest and yes Meth is a big problem but I think these inconveniences do hold some value in the short term. That is, if we are to maintain this farce of trying to control the manufacture and distribution of "illicit" drugs.

      But to my mind, until the entire issue is dealt with by legalizing and regulating, everything is a band-aid. I submit that we have been through this once before. Prohibition. Granted, some of the drugs are more lethal and more addictive than alcohol but the social process as it relates to buying, selling and using is much the same. Those that really want to use will use them whether they are legal or not. Those that do not will abstain whether they are legal or not. In the end it is a wash.

      You can either have the black market that drains the national treasury and militarizes society as the government attempts to combat it or you can legalize it, regulate it and benefit from it in a myriad of ways, not the least of which is tax revenue.

      ReplyDelete
    42. Anonymous4:24 PM

      Also don't forget the incredibly cheap labor the government gets from prisoners through UNICOR--they have an incentive to imprison Americans, it helps their bottom line...

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_Prison_Industries

      ReplyDelete
    43. Anonymous4:26 PM

      I wouldn't mind a "war on drugs" if it wasn't a war against drug users and minor drug dealers as well. The genuinely addictive, dangerous drugs need to be controlled - what's the freedom of choosing a drug that renders further rational choice next to impossible? - but it's possible to do that without criminalizing drugs like marijuana, and especially without ruining the lives of people who present only the most trivial threat to our society.

      ReplyDelete
    44. Anonymous4:27 PM

      At the very least is it possible that the cases themselves where the federal government initiated prohibition on the different drugs be reopened? From what I've heard and seen the "tests" and "reports" that demonized the drugs would be considered satire today.

      ReplyDelete
    45. I think you're more or less right on the substantive fact of the matter.

      But I also think that drug dealers and users getting getting raped in prison ranks about 200-300 on America's Great List Of Problems.

      Do you REALLY disagree that the incarceration is largely self-inflicted? Do you REALLY believe that the drug dealers and users have NO choice in the matter?

      I'm as liberal as anyone, but that's just crazy talk (to suggest that they have no free will). And it insults all those - the vast majority - in similar economic circumstances, who DO NOT sell drugs.

      ReplyDelete
    46. Anonymous4:37 PM

      Do you REALLY disagree that the incarceration is largely self-inflicted? Do you REALLY believe that the drug dealers and users have NO choice in the matter?

      The point is that your fellow citizens are being imprisoned for DOING NOTHING WRONG. It is nobody's business what adult citizens decide to put into their bodies. And it is disgusting that we want to make those choices for them and put them in cages and take away their freedom because they take substances which the government tells them they can't take.

      And yeah, that applies to drug DEALERS as well - who are doing NOTHING other than selling a substance to another adult that the other adult wants to buy.

      As far as I'm concerned, people who think it's no big deal to imprison people who do nothing wrong are as bad as anyone in the Bush Administration. And to say "well, they brought it on themselves," is morally sickening. That's like saying that blacks in the South got what they deserved during segregation because they broke the law by sitting at White lunch counters or at the front of the bus and so they brought it on themselves.

      Finally, those who think the war on drugs is insigifncant has no idea what they are talking about. Many of the infringements on liberty have their roots in the war on drugs. The federal governmetn has used it more and more to justify all sorts of intrusive surveillance, search power and detention.

      ReplyDelete
    47. Anonymous4:46 PM

      Ellen, I am going to assume that you did not read all of Alito's dissent rulings. Is that correct?

      Of course I know that judges must apply the law. I am not brain dead.

      If you Alito's controversial dissents (and fortunately, they were dissents, suggesting that other, less authoritarian judges also concerned with applying the law disagreed with him) you will see that the reasoning he uses to arrive at his decisions is the problem, and has nothing to do with the fact that as a judge, he must uphold the law.

      Clarence Thomas has given some excellent talks to groups on this very point. Although he has written a few draconian opinions, in my view, the reasoning
      behind those decisions cannot be faulted. It has to do not with a lack of compassion or a love of unjust laws, but his "strict" constructionist approach to interpretation.

      Alito wants to INTERPRET the laws in such a way as to allow unconstitutional, police state tactics to remain unchallenged and be expanded, because he views the War on Drugs, the very thing Hypatia deplores, as a crucial linchpin in the American Justice System, so crucial that he is willing to "rewrite" the language of the Fourth Amendment, which is very specific, to enable the State to pursue its War on Drugs in a completely unfettered manner.

      A proper judge with a moral character will faithfully uphold the law, but will apply the law in such a way so that when a case comes up concerning a law he does not personally find moral, his interpretation will reflect a relatively "narrow" application of the law, rather than an "expansive" interpretation, so that the damage done by the immoral law is minimized, but Rule of Law is still respected.

      And check your definitions. If I actually believed, which of course I do not, that all Judges should let criminals free and should refuse to faithfully apply the law because of personal whims, I might be a drug addled, law-hating hippie anarchist, but I would not be a Fascist.

      ReplyDelete
    48. Anonymous4:53 PM

      Perhaps a better, more practical way of examining this is more in the realm of 'privacy rights' (a laughable notion these days, I know). By framing the issue in such a manner, we shift the debate to accentuate the positives of a policy shift and put the law-and-order freaks into the position of either agreeing or having to defend their irrational policies.

      Myself, I agree with legalization and a rethinking of such things as 'mandatory minimums'. Removing the stigma attached to addiction in the first place can only help, and certainly reducing the prison population would further benefit American society as a whole by ensuring we don't loose more of our youth to that particular hell.

      Anyone see an actual downside to that.

      ReplyDelete
    49. wilson -

      Ah. Then we do have a substantive disagreement of fact. I think the deleterious effects of some activities are such that the state has a vested interest in regulating them, even if, ex hypothesi they affect no one but the person undertaking the activity.

      There can still be questions about how to go about this regulation, of course, as well as enumerating "the list" of such activities.

      But it's all beside the point to a substantial degree. I get the rather strong feeling that EVEN IF the OP agreed that drug-stuff should be against the law, that setting them up to be raped in prison would STILL be wrong.

      Thus, I think the whole legalize-drugs thing is a bit of a smokescreen, meant to elicit support for a rather different position. The position (I think) the OP is REALLY seeking support for is something that might be called "prisoners' rights". I suspect the OP knows full well that saying it thus baldly is unlikely to get much support. So instead the OP starts us off with something that is more likely to engender good feelings: drugs-shouldn't-be-criminalized-in-the-first-place.

      In any case - on the prisoners' rights side of things, I agree on the substantive point, though I think it's a low-priority item. On the legalize-drugs side of things, I disagree on the substantive point in the first place.

      ReplyDelete
    50. Anonymous5:03 PM

      cdj. said: "Do you REALLY disagree that the incarceration is largely self-inflicted? Do you REALLY believe that the drug dealers and users have NO choice in the matter?"

      Of course there is choice, and roughly 46% of the American population has chosen to use an illegal drug at some time in their lives. Do we lock them all up? The question is not whether those who are locked up broke the law. The question is whether the process we have in this country is healthy for our society.

      It's easy to see that locking people up for murder or rape is healthy for society. The results of the drug war, however, tell an entirely different story. What good have we done for society by locking them up? By breaking up families? By spending $50 billion a year on the war on drugs? By taking productive citizens out of society and placing them in with violent criminals?

      And as for not being in the top 200-300 problems, it's hard for me to understand how this could not be in the top ten, when you see that we have 25% of the world's prison population and are on the fast track to a prison nation.

      ReplyDelete
    51. Anonymous5:16 PM

      The Oxycops
      by William Fisher

      Wheelchair-bound multiple sclerosis patient Richard Paey is serving 25 years in a Florida prison for “trafficking” 1/2 gram of OxyContin, even though the prosecutor concedes that Paey never sold any of his medications. In prison, he now receives more pain-killing drugs than he was convicted of having. Dr. William Hurwitz, a pioneering pain physician, was tried and convicted of violating the Controlled Substances Act -- which is intended to curb the illicit use of drugs -- and is serving a 25-year term in federal prison. He was also fined $2 million. These are but two of hundreds of cases in which, in its zeal to stamp out the illegal drug use, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is cracking down on doctors who prescribe medications to relieve chronic pain, and the patients who depend on these drugs to live normal lives......


      Above excerpt from DissidentVoice.org., an excellent site.

      ReplyDelete
    52. Anonymous5:33 PM

      EWO: The Paey case and the persecution of Dr. Hurwitz by the State that Cares About Us are matters that trip my outrage trigger. (And I confess that reading comments from others suggesting these issues are somewhat trivial, starts in my brain a slow burn.) On the issue of drug war-drive inadequate pain control and the persecution and prosecution of doctors, few pieces are as compelling as this older one from Reason's Jacob Sullum. It is long, but repays reading; the end will kick you in the stomach.

      ReplyDelete
    53. Thank you!! Glenn too for providing a space for this issue. It is one that needs so much more attention, and is woefully ignored by the left.

      With all of the talk in the past week about the high rate of incarceration of young black males, there has been little discussion as to the real reason for why we now have a much higher incarceration rate of black youths than even the old South Africa.

      ReplyDelete
    54. Anonymous5:47 PM

      I agree with the post and most things said here.

      But why has Glenn to update with a link to comment that says Abdul Rahman has trouble in Iran when his trouble is Afghanistan.

      Glenn, did you even see this?

      Thre are several ways to get U.S. folks to attack Iran. This is one.

      ReplyDelete
    55. DrBB,
      Drug addicts of all kinds reach rock bottom at one point or another, when they realize that their drug abuse has become so negative that the must do whatever they can to overcome it. For some people, a prison term is what opens their eyes. However, for many other people, it pushes the notion of rock bottom even further away, especially in communities where there isn't as much hope for a better life as others.

      At a macro level, the statistics could not be clearer. There is no statistical correlation between imprisonment and drug use, none. Communities that impose longer prison sentences see no declines in drug use. For every person who decides to become clean due to a prison sentence, there are dozens who find a new definition for rock bottom. The war on drugs has many more victims than success stories.

      ReplyDelete
    56. Anonymous5:59 PM

      anon: I wrote this post, as a guest on Glenn's blog. He updated with a link to my comment because he has control of the update software, and also because (presumably) he found the comment significant.

      I assure you, I did not say that Mr. Rahman's travail was taking place in Iran. What I wrote is this:

      So was Abdul Rahman's harm "self-inflicted" -- the man who had faced death from the Afghanis for the “crime” of converting to Christianity. Try being a Xian or practicing Jew openly in Iran.

      People in Iran also are prohibited from practicing many religions. My point is that just because a behavior is against the law, does not mean that the proper moral analysis focuses on the choice of those who engage in said behavior.

      And I doubly assure you I am not campaigning to go to war with Iran.

      ReplyDelete
    57. I oppose America's second prohibition because it is a failure, not because I have a great deal of sympathy for the perps.

      It was my observation as a prosecutor that drug users made up a large percentage of my theft cases and drug rehabilitation was largely a failure with most of my defendants. They would beat and rob their own mothers to pay for their next fix. The only solution was a long stint in prison after drug rehab failed for the purpose of removing them from the street.

      Decriminalizing drugs is likely to make them much cheaper and therefore greatly reduce the need to steal to support the habit. A years worth of heroin in the Netherlands costs about $20. A junkie can panhandle that amount.

      However, realize that all this noise about shifting resources from jail to drug treatment is crap. This stuff is addictive poison and, by allowing drugs on the streets, you are condemning several hundred thousand users to hell on earth.

      However, the only alternative punishment which is likely to work is the death penalty ala Malasia. I don't see that flying in our society so we have to live with the walking dead.

      ReplyDelete
    58. Regardless of the self-evident truth and justice of a position held by a small minority of the population, no politician can expect to be elected to office on that basis, because we live in a prejudiced society.

      Excellent point, but prejudiced against what exactly? Common sense?

      The example that whig brings up regarding medical marijuana is right on the target, and once again it shows how a phony “war” precludes rational discussion of the issue, because it is used as a political wedge.

      Like in the “war on terror” those who disagree are “weak on terrorism” the same rhetorical and political manipulations manifest themselves in the “war on drugs” where anyone who suggests that gasp! a drug (pot) could be used to alleviate suffering is “weak on crime” – and yes, a “traitor” in the war on drugs.

      And once again, we see spineless Democrats cowering before the phony “law and order” Republicans to the extent that we are still a long, long, way from a very common sense discussion of medical marijuana.

      Now this is a very interesting and fascinating discussion, but it is a sad fact that in this country that such a topic is politically toxic; and we are light years away from even focusing upon this problem in a rational, common sense manner.

      Like so many issues in this country, we just can’t talk about it seriously – because it’s a “war” which means it must be won and common sense compromise is surrender. Sigh.

      ReplyDelete
    59. Anonymous6:41 PM

      Excellent post. I highly recommend that those interested in drug policy reform check out Ethan Nadelman's site - -Drugpolicyalliance.org. Or check out NORML, or students for sensible drug policy. Or mpp.org.
      Or the ACLU's drug policy unit. Hell, William F. Buckely, Jr supports decrim. There are thousands of ways to get invovled, many on the local level.

      People on this site seem to be very keen on protecting the 4th amendment and the bill of rights. The NSA scandal being the most recent example of blatant disregard for the constitution causing your appropriate uproar. As already known to many here- the war on drugs has likely done more to erode basic fourth amendment protections than any other single source. The examples are numerous and too many to recount here.

      The war on drugs is fueled in part by the relative ease with which cops can make drug arrests. Warrants for searches for drugs in practice are the exception - not the rule. This of course turns the 4th amendment on its head.

      Even if you hate drugs, hate drug users, have no respect for the rights of the accused, and want every drug user/dealer locked away for life - - if you love your country and believe in the sanctity of the bill of rights you have no choice but to oppose the mislabeled war on drugs. If anything, its not a war on "drugs". Its fundamentally a war on people. Its a war on personal freedom. Its a war on how we want to individually experience consciousness. Its a war on liberty -the right to be free from gov.t intrusion into our lives.

      Yes, society has an interest in making sure those on drugs do not harm others. This is a valid state interest. But it is imperative that the harm from being caught with a substance not outweigh the harm the substance itself causes. If this were put into practice, DUI's would be punished with mandatory minimums for the tens of thousands of roadside deaths caused each year and pot possession would be a petty offense. Of course, this isnt the reality. In the pro war on drugs mentality - there is no reality.

      ReplyDelete
    60. Anonymous6:56 PM

      whig writes:I think it's unfortunate that there doesn't seem to be much engagement by the other participants on this thread (or by Hypatia herself) with the points I raised.

      I just tend not to respond to posts I agree with or those that agree with me -- it is time-consuming enough to answer critics. ;)

      Your views on cannabis are about the same as mine. It is one of the most benign drugs on the planet, and has many beneficial uses.

      Memo to all DEA readers: "Not that I'd know from personal experience."

      ReplyDelete
    61. Anonymous7:16 PM

      The racist overtones alluded to were codified by statute in the federal sentencing guidelines for many many years.

      It was the old 100 to 1 ratio for violations of the controlled substances act in regards to cocaine powder and crack (rock)cocaine. Guess which offender received the 100x more severe sentence? This was the product of the crack epidemic from the 80's that was the source of all the crack baby stories and inner city wastelands.

      How fitting that the Iran/Contra participants who were partly responsible for using CIA planes to ship tons of kilo's of fresh coke into the states - are now also involved in the NSA scandal. We couldnt get those bastards jailed then - - but maybe we can now. I dont have the links for all this cuz im at work - but they are out there.

      And yes, the criminalization of marijuana is overtly racist as well. Can't have the mexican workers in the southwest and african american new orleans jazz singers raping our white woman can we? Jack Herer has the history and congressional testimony available at his "the emporer wears no clothes" site. Just google - read - and try not to laught too hard.

      ReplyDelete
    62. Anonymous7:22 PM

      The practical effect of legalization/decriminalization of pot:

      Quality goes up. Smoke less, so less harmful health effects.

      Price goes down, by necessity, to take the profit motive for smuggling out of the equation.

      ReplyDelete
    63. Whig asks; Everything from cocaine to morphine can be had under medical supervision. But not cannabis. Why is that?
      The answer is that legal cannabis could easily be grown in the home, in a box of dirt on a window ledge. If legal it offers little opportunity for profit or tax revenue. Although I have heard that many corporations have copyrights to potential brand names just in case legalisation does occur.
      BTW, my friend Buzz says, 'Just say no thanks - it doesn't cost anything to be polite.'

      ReplyDelete
    64. Racist overtones?

      Let’s not forget our government once approved and encouraged drug use when it helped Chinese workers to finish the railroads.

      "The first drug prohibition law was an 1875 San Francisco ordinance prohibiting opium and aimed at Chinese workers, who were no longer needed to bring the railroad west and who were blamed for taking jobs of whites during a depression,"

      ReplyDelete
    65. Anonymous7:58 PM

      Hypatia,

      enjoyed the post. i work in an addiction research lab at a major university, so this stuff is quite interesting to me. some comments:

      the war on drugs is a parallel to the abstinence-only movement. this is why we see things like the HPV vaccine- which has the potential to save literally thousands of women who die of cervical cancer every year- being kept out of the public's hands because it would encourage promiscuity. no. joke.
      this reminds me of the lack of access to methadone, which is currently the best treatment for opiate addiction.

      this strategy is a complete failure, from the criminalization of use to the abstinence-driven drug education taught in schools. they start by trying to scare children away from the "gateway" substances such as marijuana. when Junior smokes his first joint and doesn't grow breasts or jump off a building, but finds that he suddenlly reaaaaaalllly enjoys chips (i mean, for real dudes)
      he is simply not going to believe the people who spouted that garbage when it comes to the horrible stuff like heroin or crystal meth.

      the idea that drugs and sex are immoral is a fine thing to teach your children if you want, but it is a piss-poor foundation for public policy. the the tactic of prohibition simply does does not work.

      ReplyDelete
    66. Anonymous9:34 PM

      heres the question...how do we get the issue out of the blogs and into the halls of congress? Just talking about the war on drugs on a website isn't going to do anything...

      ReplyDelete
    67. Anonymous9:40 PM

      However, the only alternative punishment which is likely to work is the death penalty ala Malasia.

      So you're saying it worked in Malasia?

      Then how come the're still hanging people. If it worked, then there should be no more drug dealers!

      Im glad you have come to the correct conclusion vis-a-vis legalization, but you're a real scumbag at heart.

      The irony of this is crazy. For the blackmarket to work, there has to be a certian level of trust and honesty. Some of the people I know that deal pot are fair and aboveboard with all their actions. Good people that you can give your money to with no worries.

      The law enforcement community that makes its living going after drugs consist of some of the most vile people imaginable.

      They regualarly lie, steal, fabricate evidence, and extort. Betrayal is their stock in trade. The DEA is so rotten that if they were broken up, I doubt any other agency would want them.

      Ironic, no?cn

      ReplyDelete
    68. So how does a member of the Bush cult feel about the issue of drugs? Our resident troll sums it up succinctly:

      “However, realize that all this noise about shifting resources from jail to drug treatment is crap……. the only alternative punishment which is likely to work is the death penalty ala Malasia ……”

      Ah, spoken like a true “compassionate conservative” – you can almost feel the love of the Tom Delay’s Jesus in those words can’t you?

      So, when Aunt Millie’s cancer treatments are making her so sick that the only thing that brings her temporary relief and allows her to eat is a drug called cannabis, she should be killed when she uses it, because we have no sympathy for “perps” like Millie, and Malaysia has the answer – the death penalty. (Sorry Aunt Millie, but you did break the law.)

      Of course, we do have sympathy for “perps” like El Rushbo who, once he was busted with Hillbilly Heroin suddenly changed his tune and found great value in “rehab” -- "Immediately following this broadcast, I am checking myself into a treatment center…..You know, over the years athletes and celebrities have emerged from treatment centers to great fanfare and praise for conquering great demons.”

      Our “national treasure” emerged from rehab totally cured, his demons conquered, and he is one the most respected voices of the cultists. Even the Vice President of the United States has honored him with rare interviews. What more proof do you need that rehab works? (But it only works for rich Republicans.)

      Oh, it must be fun being a Bush-worshiping troll. Logic, facts, common sense, and basic decency can all be brushed aside in a contradictory, convoluted cacophony of corrosive crud.

      ReplyDelete
    69. Anonymous9:49 PM

      Thanks for this briliant post Hypatia. This is one of those issues that has me frustrated to the point of toothbreaking as I see nothing done while the situation continues to worsen.

      Part of the problem is the ease with which elected officials use the drug war, and crime in general, as divisive issues to hammer opponents with. Its far too easy to propose some lame legislation to show how tough you are on crime, then blast any opponent with the common sense to stand against it as "soft" or worse. Out here in Oregon we just watched this dynamic at work with the anti-meth bill to force people who use cold pills to get a prescription. Even on right-wing radio out here this legislation was lambasted as un-American, but nobody in the state leg had the guts to take a stand in opposition for fear of having to hear themselves called "soft on crime" this November.

      The American public has to take responsibility for being so easily manipulated by these tactics, because if they didn't work so well they wouldn't keep using them. Its largely this dynamic which makes it impossible for even those in congress who realize we've gone round the bend in the war on drugs, with all its mandatory minimums, to make any headway in the direction of fixing the problem.

      Until the public steps up and refuses to be manipulated by tough talking law and order rednecks, we'll continue to see our families torn apart by this war.

      ReplyDelete
    70. Anonymous9:55 PM

      I've long considered the war on drugs and have come to a simple solution:

      Marijuana is by far the most popular and safest recreational drug, even more so than alcohol and nicotine. Legalize and regulate marijuana for adult use similar to the way we regulate alcohol and tobacco and the illegal drug blackmarket would collapse, practically overnight.

      ReplyDelete
    71. Anonymous10:15 PM

      If people could learn to accept that others might do things they disagree with that harm no one but themselves, instead of being a bunch of babies and legislating their morality (anti-drug morality in this case) onto everyone under the guise of "protecting the childrens!!!" or some such nonsense because of their inability to cope with other people being free to do what they wish, we wouldn't have this drug problem.

      If people would mind their own buisiness, and worry only about themselves, there would be no need for a "war on drugs". People need to learn to deal with other people having freedom and making decisions that they might not agree with like an adult who deserves the freedom that allows them to do things I might not agree with free of stigmitization and being made into a second class citizen for what they do.

      ReplyDelete
    72. Anonymous10:22 PM

      I was arrested for DUI, merely because I had marijuana in the car and refused to take a blood test. No Miranda. No Field sobriety. No lawyer willing to fight the small town conspiracy racket/franchise that epitomizes the drug war. Turns out in eight U.S. states, they can convict you for DUID with no evidence of impairment, whatsoever.

      I got to keep my job and my family still together, but it has tainted my career -- I say this to emphasize that while the war on drugs has many stories of addiction, redemption and persecution, it also has claimed millions of reputations, hurt the earning power of millions -- all because of, instead of being drunk at the bar with the state's attorneys. The Consitution, I've discovered, really doesn't exist. Probable Cause? Forget it...The drug war is about money for cops, drug testing and corporate treatment centers (if insured). It also happens to be a culture war -- payback for the 60s, and a way to keep the number of liberals who vote way down. Because if you aren't a liberal before you get arrested for one crime but charged with another, you will be when it is over. I sympathize for all the Drug War Victims who had it far worse than me. This is how liberty -- and humanity -- died.

      ReplyDelete
    73. Anonymous10:26 PM

      “However, realize that all this noise about shifting resources from jail to drug treatment is crap……. the only alternative punishment which is likely to work is the death penalty ala Malasia ……”

      Here's an alternative:

      Mind your own buisiness & worry about the only person that you can control - yourself. Advocating the death penalty for a person who does something you don't agree with is beyond stupid. Instead of an alternate punishment how about no punishment, people should be allowed to ingest whatever they feel like ingesting, even if you disagree with it.

      As to your alternate punishment, the death penalty works really well. Just look at how the number of murders in America is almost 0 because of it. State administered murder(death penalty) has been shown to not be a good preventative measure against murder, why would it be a good preventative measure against people using drugs (which is really nobody but the person who does thems buisiness anyway) ?

      ReplyDelete
    74. Anonymous10:32 PM

      The hypocrisy of many drug war proponents is mind-boggling. From Rush and his trips to the parking lot with cigar boxes full of "cabbage" (or lettuce or whatever the gal said it was he called cash) in trade for enough hillbilly heroin to down a bull, to Jeb Bush's daughter who needed lots and lots of treatment, given how hard a time she had obeying the rules at the treatment facility, they all seem to find a kind of excuse for their own behavior they just won't allow for others who don't have their connections. It never ceases to amaze me how differently they see their own drug use compared to the way they see it on the part of those less fortunate. Even George W Bush used cocaine. To those who don't want to believe that, I can only say, what would you think of anybody else who in answer to the direct question, "have you ever used cocaine?" would say, "let me put it this way, i haven't broken any laws since the 70s," (or something very close to that.) That clears it up. Come on Bart, how hard would it be to just say "no" if that were the truth? But Bush is a new man and history is just that. people change. Rich white people change anyway.

      And another thing, if a drug appeared on the black-market that killed almost half a million people a year, evry congressman in DC would offer up the death penalty for it. Cigarettes though, are part of the rich white male economy, and they're different. Likewise, alcohol, which creates carnage on the freeways and in families, is a big part of the economy as well. These drugs are matters of choice, and govt can't act like a daddy where people are supposed to make wise choices. If the govt got involved in every area where people do stupid things, we'd be a giant penal colony.

      Oh the hypocrisy. If we didn't have europe as an example of how legalizing and regulating drug use can work in place of a govt sanctioned war effort, it'd be hard to make the case. But when we have it right there to see, how can we keep acting like this war approach is rational? Whether you come from the side of NORML, who have awhole liberal agenda, or Bart, who just wants to see things that work, it doesn't take much thought to arrive at the conclusion we're going at this all wrong.

      notherbob, you seem to have abasic problem with good old SAT questiuon of the Ais to B as C is to D variety. The war on drugs and NSA spying are both instances of govt overzealousness. Republicans and Dems have screwed up the war on drugs. So far, illegal spying seems to be primarily a Republican thing, but Dems sem none too eager to take it on, so there you go. Some times you work so hard trying to make an argument bend to your foregone conclusion, you pretzel logic beyond recognition.

      ReplyDelete
    75. Anonymous12:02 AM

      cdj said...
      wilson -

      Ah. Then we do have a substantive disagreement of fact. I think the deleterious effects of some activities are such that the state has a vested interest in regulating them, even if, ex hypothesi they affect no one but the person undertaking the activity.


      Ah. I see. Turn everyone's private lives over to Big Brother. He's done a heckuva great job so far.

      But I don't think you are going to like what he has in store for you and, unfortunately, for everyone now that he's finally come out of the closet.

      ReplyDelete
    76. Anonymous12:56 AM

      For some compelling commentary about the failure of the war on drugs in general and the increasingly militarized law enforcement approach to non-violent drug offenders, check out Radley Balko's site at http://www.theagitator.com. He also speaks fairly frequently about the attendant "war on doctors" component as demonstrated by the Paey case amongst many others.

      Balko is a policy analyst for Cato, and is an avowed libertarian like Hypatia. I don't agree with everything he says, but his stuff on the Cory Maye travesty (which is another tragic story in the bogus war on drugs) is pure gold.

      ReplyDelete
    77. Anonymous12:59 AM

      weed life, in this country it's a crime,
      but even presidents are puffin' now, everybody's gettin' high

      ReplyDelete
    78. Anonymous2:00 AM

      I think this adminstration should make legalizing drugs its top priority -- after all, chimpy is HUGELY unpopular.

      Let him get in front of the American people and tell us that he went AWOL in TANG because he couldn't get legal cocaine.

      He might actually be able to get people to drink the "kool-aide" if it had legal, psychodelic drugs.

      I, for one, would love to see the chimperor get repeatedly high on heroin.

      ReplyDelete
    79. Anonymous2:04 AM

      Did anyone else see this story:

      White House tests water for cocaine

      Water runoff will be tested for urinary drug byproducts.

      http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=737418

      So what do you think - if thier is cocaine in the urine, WILL CHIMPY DRINK IT OR SNORT IT.

      Perhaps he will use it for bong water or mix it with his booze.

      mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

      Cocaine urine...

      ReplyDelete
    80. Anonymous4:53 AM

      Prison sentences are way too long across the board. Most could be cut down to half or less and still befit the crime.

      Thanks for driving home how drug sentences are some of the most draconian of all, for something that many people don't even consider to be a crime.

      ReplyDelete
    81. Anonymous2:53 PM

      Just another small irony:

      I was a medical user who decided it was more responsible to grow my own than to buy on the street. I had a small garden in a bedroom closet. I never told anyone and I never sold any.

      Now I find myself a felon for having committed a nonviolent, victimless crime. I would have been much better off buying from dealers and dealing myself because the sentence is lighter and I would have had information to bargain with.

      A secondary irony:

      A good part of my income came from consulting work in Canada. Now I cannot enter that country because I am a felon, even though what I did is perfectly legal there.

      ReplyDelete
    82. Anonymous9:31 PM

      Can't believe this thread has gotten so long with no mention whatsoever of the Suboxone regimen for opiate addiction; I really hope DrBB comes back and reads this, or that someone brings it to their attention:
      There is now (for the past three years) a highly effective medical protocol for detoxing from, and maintaining a life free of, the horrors of an active opiate addiction.
      Suboxone is a combination of opiate agonist and opiate antagonist, available by prescription from a duly authorized medical doctor. which allows the opiate addict in recovery to live an essentially normal life in virtually every respect. Since its release to the market three years ago, tens of thousands of active opiate addicts have been able to walk away from their opiate addictions, and to stay clean and sober for years at a time. (I'm one of them; c&s for nearly three years myself.)
      If you, or anyone you know or care for - or even have the vaguest acquaintance of -- has a problem of opiate dependence (and with OxyContin's wide availability, the number of such has skyrocketed), PLEASE google "suboxone" and find a clinic, hospital, or program with the special DEA license that is required to prescribe the Suboxone protocol. It is, as several of us in the support groups of which I am a part often say, truly a miracle.
      That said, I'd also like to throw in my $.02 on the larger issue of the "War on Drugs" vs legalization/decriminalization, which is:
      Of all the "addictive" substances out there, most are actually almost entirely benign for the largest parts of the population.
      F'rinstance, of all people who have EVER tried opiates, less than 15% (I think it's less than 10%, but don't have the data in front of me and am too busy right now to google it) become addicted.
      Ditto for cocaine, of course; and the fraction of pot-smokers who develop a clinically significant dependency is even smaller.
      Alcohol? Of all intoxicants, that one has the SECOND HIGHEST RATE of dependency-development (alcoholism) -- on the order of 15%. (The highest, as other posters have pointed out upthread, is nicotine.)
      Bill Maher put it very succinctly -- if rudely and inaccurately -- when he asked why HIS lifestyle choices had to be limited because of what the stupidest people did. (It's not entirely -- and probably not even primarily -- volitional, who will wind up with a problem and who will not. There are certainly genetic components, at the very least.)
      But it is a good question – why should the 85-90+% of people who WON’T ever develop a life-threatening dependency not be able to enjoy any particular substance in moderation, just because I wound up an addict?
      Especially when even the most cursory glance at the history of the various prohibitions of the various substances clearly demonstrates the racist components behind their respective criminalizations..

      ReplyDelete
    83. Anonymous11:31 PM

      nobody you've heard of, that was an outstanding comment, in all respects. I hope DrBB sees it, and good luck to you.

      ReplyDelete
    84. Anonymous1:16 PM

      I think you're more or less right on the substantive fact of the matter.

      But I also think that drug dealers and users getting getting raped in prison ranks about 200-300 on America's Great List Of Problems.

      Do you REALLY disagree that the incarceration is largely self-inflicted? Do you REALLY believe that the drug dealers and users have NO choice in the matter?

      I'm as liberal as anyone, but that's just crazy talk (to suggest that they have no free will). And it insults all those - the vast majority - in similar economic circumstances, who DO NOT sell drugs.



      Ye Gods and Little Fishes.

      That line of thinking is a blank check to gov't. If the thing is illegal (even if it isn't wrong) then anyone who chooses to do it deserves what they get.

      Chewing gum is an offense in Singapore (caning, with a rattan stick; the convict often having to be revived between blows because they pass out from shock), but hey, they chose to do it.

      In the Soviet Union it was illegal to write, publish, or read samizdat, the folks who were sent to the gulag, or shot in the back of the head in Lyubyanka, heck, they asked for it, because they didn't have to copy any of Akhmatova's poems.

      That sort of kowtowing to authority is more terrifying than ten times the number of addicts we have today.

      TK

      ReplyDelete
    85. Anonymous4:19 PM

      Just look at the power the pharmaceutical industry has in this country. Evidently it is a good idea to have a drugged populace as long as Pfizer profits.

      ReplyDelete
    86. Anonymous8:24 AM

      little heroes:
      "while others (cocaine and meth) are incredibly threatening."

      Can you elaborate what the "threat" is? Drugs are threatening to whom? The user? Non-using persons around them? Consensus morality?

      Look, if someone gets high on cocaine and meth (or alcohol) and commits a crime, why is it so difficult to prosecute them for that crime, rather than turning the drug use itself into a crime?

      ReplyDelete
    87. Anonymous6:07 PM

      I would be open to letting th elaw enforcement people decide what needed to be taken seriously and i doubt if marijuana would make the list. now meth, heroin and crack -you betcha, most of the others, experimentation or life choice, but again, if you aren't hurting anyone, i don't see an issue. i read, i think it was last summer, one of the chicago news papers did a great article on the cost of the war on drugs adn how much we could do if we used that money more wisely. or if it were regulated and the money went towards the treatment of violent crimes. i have been saying for a while now....if only we could have a *war* on violence and not personal choices that don't necess effect any others...it is ridiculous and an accurate reflection of our mentality. as long as it makes us *feel* better and we can stick our head in the sand over real issues, we will continue to pass laws against marijuana...and still not be able to figure out why we can't afford to have violent offenders serve their full sentences. and in alabama, it's a good thing they regulate OTC cold medications. people i talk to who work in social services say meth is the worst drug they have ever seen. a heroin addict has a better chance of getting clean...i say, let the police tell us what drugs cause the most violence and go after them...whoops, can't do that - alcohol is already legal!

      ReplyDelete
    88. Anonymous6:14 PM

      as far as regulation - i am truly shocked it hasn't been legalized and the tabacco companies haven't started selling joints in packs. that will be next i bet. too much money to be made, they already have all the equipement, pot is easy to grow, doesn't deplete the soil like other crops, once the cig smokers drop in percentage a little more, well, i would be surprised if our govt didn;t all of a sudden approve it,,for philip morris or some such. i have been waiting for a couple of years on this one...it just makes to much sense from a coporate stand point. they already have everything they need...idk...when they figure out they can make a ton of money from selling it, they will.

      i have also wondered why we don't just fine drug users, like 200 an incident, no record, and then use that money, again for violent criminals or treatment programs. but i guess there is too much common sense in there somewhere...

      ReplyDelete