street Drug

I am not a street drug user. I did indulge in marijuana use over a three-year period, but that was over 20 years ago. I used tobacco over a 12-year period. Today my drug use is confined to seasonal allergy medicine, a daily caffeine habit, and the rare alcoholic drink. Yes, tobacco, caffeine and alcohol are drugs. Alcohol is just as intoxicating as street drugs. Nicotine is more addictive than some street drugs. Caffeine is becoming stronger and stronger.

I am not trying to promote street drug use. They create medical problems in your body, destroy your moral sense and ruin those around you. I have no pity for users

and I don t buy the argument that addiction is a disease. The government should discourage the use of these drugs, but not prohibit. Prohibition did not work with alcohol and does not work with street drugs. Prohibition is responsible for the violence on the streets. It has restricted the supply making the price high enough for the suppliers to engage in violent criminal behavior and risk jail time.

Over its history, prohibition has cost us trillions of dollars. Trillions for the cost of bloated government bureaucracies, direct foreign aid, military operations in South America, border surveillance, domestic surveillance, prison construction and operation, court costs, medical expenses, the creation of local para-military police forces, property

crime costs, etc. These costs ripple through many parts of our society.

If you are a conservative and you like to remind the liberals that the trillions of dollars they have spent on public assistance has not mad a difference, please take an honest look at your sacred moral war on drugs. Like welfare, prohibition exacerbates the problem that it is trying to solve. We criticize liberals for showcasing their compassion by supporting a failing program like welfare while we showcase our tough on crime stance by supporting a failing war on drugs.

Prohibition is a violation of your privacy. I realize the Constitution does not give us the expressed right to privacy, but there is

an implied one in our culture (Abortionists can t use this argument. You are dealing with another life.). The government should not get involved in your personal behavior unless you put others at risk (e.g. driving while under the influence). The government has used the war on drugs to confiscate private property (asset forfeiture). The government has used the war on drugs to monitor your personal finances (money laundering laws) and confiscate more taxes. The government hates hard-to-track cash transactions and passes laws disguised as anti-drug laws to try to regulate cash transactions. I should be able to enter and leave this country with a suitcase full of money without being investigated. It s my money.

SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

Street drugs bring health problems, but how widespread are they? Drug abuse destroys the lives of some users but how big of a societal problem is it? Think about the latest drug hysteria you have heard over methamphetamines. It sounds like every teenager in the country will be hooked on crystal meth by 2010. Sure, meth addiction and meth labs are a public hazard, but haven t we heard this story before? The last scourge in our society was Oxycontin (hillbilly heroin) in the 90s. Before that it was crack cocaine in the 80s. I remember growing up in the late 60s and early 70s fearing my

older brothers would become addicted to LSD, heroin or angel dust. Remember, Reefer Madness? That was a movie made in the 30s about the dangers of marijuana use. They exaggerated the effects of marijuana that wasn t even close to the potency of the stuff that is out there now. Kids were turned into insane murderers who listened to- Are you ready for this? -Jazz music! Do you think there was a racist overtone there?

Race and immigration have historically been at the root of drug wars. Marijuana was originally a border issue with Mexico. Narcotics regulations came in the early 20th century after we started getting involved in Asian affairs.

Cocaine, the drug of choice of our 19th century white intellectuals, was included in the narcotics regulating Harrison Act of 1914 because of stories coming out of the south about cocaine crazed Negroes attacking white women. Look at cocaine enforcement in the 70s and 80s. When it was the drug of choice of rich white rock stars, celebrities and politicians, nobody really cared. But when the affordable and more powerful crack cocaine hit the black community in the 80s, law enforcement and politicians started a new war on the drug.

Along with racism we have to discuss classism (No, I am not a liberal, I just hate inconsistencies.). If a rich person becomes

addicted to Oxycontin and uses his wealth to buy it illegally, we use the euphemism, prescription drug abuse. Once they are caught, its group hugs for everybody at a tony $100,000-a-month rehab clinic. If a poor person becomes addicted to it and illegally attains the drug, we call it, hillbilly heroin addiction and slam him into a taxpayer supported $1,000-a-month prison. The rich victim leaves the clinic after 30 days, writes a book, appears on Oprah, and is publicly admired for overcoming his demons. The redneck gets 5-10 years of hard time and a felony record. I am not into class envy. I m just trying to be consistent. Though I am a Rush Limbaugh fan, I don t like seeing addicts like him and Brett Favre being treated differently than addicts like Billy Bob and Cletus.

Drug enforcement has also led to the creation of over-zealous, over-armed, militarized local police forces. These SWAT teams are necessary for drug busts, armed robberies, hostage situations, first response for terrorists, etc. But as their presence becomes more standard, their costs must be justified and they will be used for less dangerous routine arrests. These officers are the more aggressive members of your local police force. They are better trained and better equipped. Don t you think this might make them more anxious for a confrontation?

I have no problem with them aggressively confronting armed felons. These are street animals that need to be dealt with harshly. But SWAT teams that are being used for less potentially lethal activities are more likely to escalate the violence.

INCONSISTENCIES

We already discussed how alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine are drugs. But how many of our war on drug warriors experimented with drugs in their youth? Experimented is the coward s euphemism for used. At some point they realized that their habit was counterproductive and quit. This left them with a self-righteous attitude about the hardcore addicts.

How many of these travelers of the moral high road are

abusing or relying on prescription medication? Three out of four of my closest neighbors wives are on some type of prescription medication for mental disorders. This is anecdotal information, but if you looked at my neighborhood it would appear that the middle class is enjoying a Huxleysian Soma society while the poor are shooting up street drugs.

How many of our children are doped up on Ritalin and other psychotropic drugs? We educate our children in schools about illegal drug use and explain (rightly) how it won t make their lives easier, and then we shove prescription meds down their throats to calm them down and try to make our lives easier.

PROHIBITION JUST DOESN T

WORK

We have tried to attack the demand side of the drug problem. Drug arrests are growing each year, courts are backlogged, and our prison population is growing larger. There are treatment centers, education programs for school children, public service announcements, etc. But the demand is still there.

We have tried to attack the supply side. We have directly assisted in military operations to try to eradicate coca production in one part of South America only to see it spring up in others. We have tried to wipe out the opium crops in Afghanistan only to see more farms gathering in Iran and Pakistan. We have tried eradicating marijuana in California only to see

production move to Oregon and Washington. We have cracked down on the supply of the chemicals needed to produce amphetamines in the US only to see the production shift to Mexico. We have cracked down on supply routes along the Mexican border only to see an increase through the Caribbean or Canada. It is one huge international shell game.

People have used mind-altering drugs since the beginning of time for pain, sexual gratification, relaxation, religion, escapism, etc. Prohibition has never stopped this and merely drives up the price making the criminal suppliers richer and more likely to engage in violent and illegal behavior. If we legalize we will need fewer prisons, fewer police, and we

can reduce some foreign aid. The taxpayers should save billions in tax dollars as the size of the government shrinks. But maybe our politicians don t want this to happen. Maybe they want us to perpetually believe that we are on the verge on winning the war on drugs. And maybe they don t want to give up one of their proven vote getters, a tough on drugs campaign stance.

Legalization will be followed by regulation and this will protect the consumer by standardizing the quantity and quality. We currently do this with other medication. This means fewer overdoses, fewer exploding garage labs, and a decrease in medical costs. The same thing happened

when prohibition was repealed and poisonous bathtub gin, radiator alcohol, and exploding whiskey stills went away. The trick is not to over-regulate (make production to expensive) and force the industry underground. Taxation will be the next step and that will bring in revenue. Again we should resist the urge to over-tax and create black markets. Taxes should be used as a way to discourage use and raise revenue. The revenue can be used for treatment facilities for abuse. We should ban advertising, and aggressively pursue drugged drivers, anybody providing drugs to children, and anybody who commits a crime while under the influence.

Illegal immigration should subside a little bit. There will be fewer mules

moving back and forth over the border. National and local resources that went to counter drug activities can be moved to border security. Lower prices will also mean less money for terrorists in South America and Afghanistan.

There will be a whole host of other benefits from legalization. This includes direct benefits like less property crime committed by addicts and more research on the medical benefits of some of these street drugs. We might even see new types of industry created.

Don t expect this to happen anytime soon. Social change is always slow, especially when the politician is committing political suicide. We could start out small with limited legalization in limited areas.

Drug use and drug price will initially go up in those areas as the stoners hear about it and move there creating more demand, but the market will eventually stabilize. Certain employer like the military, public safety jobs, factories with dangerous machines, school workers, etc. can still prohibit use. If you want to use these drugs, you will have to find work elsewhere. Some employers may encourage responsible drug use. I prefer a truck driver who is hyped up on a little speed versus one who is a little drowsy.

Alcohol prohibition did not work and gave us organized crime and the Kennedy dynasty. Drug prohibition has not worked and given us the Crips, the

Bloods and MS-13. Why don t we learn? We have to stop fighting this problem and learn to manage it.

Something Ain’t Right http://www.somethingaintright.com