Vladimir Georgievsky / Stockxpert.com
Seattle has enough on its plate. With a $9 billion state budget deficit that ‘snuck up’ on Governor Gregoire, a chalk outline around a beloved newspaper and the familiar choir of discord tuning up to toss a welcome wrench or two into the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement plans, our to do list is crammed full. Nevertheless, if former Seattle Chief of Police Norm Stamper has his way we should be adding radical reform of our drug policy to an already crowded slate of issues.
Although Stamper has long been a proponent of decriminalizing drugs, his position on legalization has recently taken a radical turn into new and radical territory. Where the bulk of those advocating reform and decriminalization draw the line somewhere around legalization of marijuana, the once-shamed top cop of Seattle is now waving the banner for legalizing “all” drugs.
In the March 19th post to his blog at online Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Stamper writes, “So, in answer to the question, Legalize which drugs? All of them, every last one.”
Stamper’s argument for total legalization does not stand on fatigued arguments of the high cost of prosecuting a war on drugs, nor on civil liberties rationale. No, Stamper argues that the United States should not be letting the bad guys have a monopoly on pushing drugs.
“We either allow the $500 billion illicit global drug industry to monopolize the commerce--and to decide who gets what drugs at what levels of potency and purity and at what price--or we end prohibition. And turn the regulation of currently illegal drugs over to an admittedly imperfect government.”
In a nutshell, Stamper’s contention appears to be that drug industry outsourcing the problem. It is a shame that Stamper’s replacement, Chief Gil Kerlekowski is the one heading to D.C. He could have presented President Obama with a new plan to ‘save or create’ jobs and rescue our floundering economy. For potheads it would offer a whole new meaning to the term ‘green jobs’.
While Stamper makes valid points about saving billions of dollars that are currently spent in drug interdiction operations domestically and abroad - a strong argument to make during our current economic crisis – he glosses over the negative social and economic consequences of making all drugs legal. The same drains on our culture and economy that are now caused by drug use would persist after legalization, for the simple reason that drugs are dangerous with or without regulation. Put succinctly by Joseph A. Califano, Jr., chairman of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, in an article published by the journal of the British Medical Association, “Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous.”
Stamper’s attempt to circumvent the notion that there is an inherent and unavoidable menace posed by drugs in any regulatory setting takes the form of proposing tight restrictions and regulations on the people who would be licensed by the government to distribute drugs to users. We have the evidence right in front of us to prove that legalizing drugs with the promise of regulating them neither discourages nor prevents abuse. Prescription medications are being abused on an epidemic scale despite the presence of an existing framework of regulations, licensing and product quality standards as are suggested to be the answer in Stamper’s piece. Is there really any reason to believe that use of heroin or methamphetamine would be easier to control than Oxycodone? Furthermore, there is a thriving black market in this country for such drugs, one that has a criminal element attached to it. Because of the nature of increasing tolerance and the addicts need for more of the drug to get high, there always will exist a network of suppliers eager to feed the habit beyond what the regulators are willing to allow.
Perhaps that is why Stamper’s war on the war on drugs is silent when it comes to suggesting that we could expect to see usage decline if his policies were ever adopted. In this, he has my respect for not singing a siren’s song. Addiction is a complex chain of events that often beset upon people already walking down a dark alley of depression or low self-esteem. Drugs are just the mugger waiting behind the dumpster, and so it seems inevitable that the government in Stamper’s utopia would be in the business of creating and maintaining thousands of addictions.
Even more disturbing than the idea of the government assuming the role of dealer, is the possibility of Uncle Sam being a pusher. Part of Stamper’s sales pitch is taxation and with taxation comes institutionalized dependency on those revenue sources. The dysfunction of the way our government operates will have come full circle when the addiction to tax money is connected directly with the addiction to drugs.
Even if the government could resist the temptation to perpetuate a drug market to put funds in the public coffer, it would still be in the business of violating a code that doctors live under and which should be adopted as the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the U.S Constitution: “Do no harm.”
According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s 2004 report on the economic costs of drug abuse in the United States, (the full report can be accessed here) the costs in terms of health care and lost productivity resulting from drug abuse was more than $180 billion in 2002. It would be foolish to expect those costs to disappear due to legalization. It might be wiser to assume their increase.
The reasons for and against legalization often seem more like constructs that are used to defend purely moral arguments in which the rules of evidence and debate do not suffice. In this way, Stamper’s proposal seems to suggest an amoral approach toward drugs at best, or an embrace of their effects at worst. As a society we have, by and large, recognized that drugs an intrinsically destructive force. For now, I am confident that moral clarity will be enough to halt efforts like Stamper’s in their tracks.
Comments
Stamper is on the money.
- Prohibition II (the drug war) fails to meet any of its goals. It is however not a failure, it is the problem.
- Drug use rates in countries with less punitive drug policies have less use (Netherlands)
- Switzerland has taken tremendous strides with their Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) program. Addict crime is greatly reduced. Addict health is greatly improved. Addict employment greatly improved... the program has been so successful it rec'd 2/3 of Swiss voters votes in their last election and is now a permanent, nationwide program.
- quoting the ONDCP and Joe Califano is like quoting AIG execs as successful financial experts.
- the roots of our drug laws are racist, xenophobic and bear no relationship to science, fact or common truth.
Further Bryan, if harm is to be your metric of measurement regarding illegality, illegal drugs fall far down the list.
Mr Myrick,
Your argument, like all prohibition arguments, rests on a false premise. That premise is that prohibition is stoping someone, somewhere, from taking the drug of thier choice. The fact is that everyone in America, including those in jail, are able to purchase drugs. There is no one in America seeking drugs and coming up empty handed. Those who favor prohibition for fear of what legalization may bring - already have it and much worse. Prohibition stops no one and helps no one.
For the majority of our nation's history, we had no illegal drugs because no drugs were illegal.
95 years ago anybody could buy heroin, cocaine or any other drug for pennies per dose in local grocery stores and pharmacies--with no questions asked. Back then, the term "drug-related crime" didn't exist. Neither did drug lords, drug cartels or even drug dealers as we know them today.
Alcohol didn't cause the violence of the 20's and 30's. Prohibition did. Drugs don't cause the violence in our inner cities today, prohibition does. Suppression of free will as it relates to personal responsibility and liberty is criminal. Because I do not believe something is good for me does not give me or anyone else the right to outlaw it for everyone.
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." Albert Einstein
Have you considered the true architecture of the USg's "war on drugs"? First off, they slam up Prohibition. No, actually, first, they "learned" the market dynamics of alcohol Prohibition for 13 to 14 years in the early 1900s -- specifically, how that Prohibition directly creates a black market for consumable products that functions unrestricted (meaning, the masses of consumers *always* get their products they can consume, anyway).
Next, (accelerated time line) they "black list" (resulting in a market being created directly due to this) as many "Schedule drugs" as they can - you know what they are. Knowing *full well* a black market WILL be created wherein producers/distributors/marketers/consumers thrive. It's been this way since "Schedule drugs" first hit in the 1970s.
What are they really doing, then? I'll tell ya... they are battling the Prohibition policy they installed. That's what they're *really* doing.
So, anytime you read about any form of narco police fighting any kind of narco traffickers in any way, shape or form, just remember to look beyond that, and to look to the architecture of the struggle: "law enforcement" Vs. Prohibition. All else arises from *that* reality.
Now enter stupidity and the "great human error." Slamming widely consumable, widely available products into Prohibition KNOWING a black market WILL BE created (as it was and is with drugs)............ then they blow $100s of billions of taxpayers' dollars to "fight" their own Prohibition policy that actually enriches "drug cartels" making *them* more powerful and more violent (end result Mexico for example) with over 1 million black market-controlling gang members INSIDE the USA, arresting over 38 million citizens for "possession / consumption," since the 1970s.
And, what for? For Prohibition. *Not* for people being "criminals," but because Prohibition outlaws consumption... that continues to go on *unabated* as it always has in the black market they already *know* functions.
It's *never* against any "real" laws to consume, it's only against artificial laws that Constitutional rules must be broken to even write into existence.
So, as you say, "what's is going on?" **Gross stupidity** is what is going on. :-) And, *whoever* can make money and/or get rich on these Prohibition dynamics, is doing so.
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it 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 (1809-65), U.S. President. Speech, 18 Dec. 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives
"Even more disturbing than the idea of the government assuming the role of dealer, is the possibility of Uncle Sam being a pusher."
How much do big tobacco, pharmacy and alcohol contribute to politicians every year, much less pay in taxes? Get over yourself, the government is ALREADY doing the pushing.
"Even if the government could resist the temptation to perpetuate a drug market to put funds in the public coffer, it would still be in the business of violating a code that doctors live under and which should be adopted as the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the U.S Constitution: “Do no harm.”"
Really? Reaaallly? So, let's say we adopt this amendment. Are people that own companies that benefit from having thugs trained at the school of americas to kidnap, murder, and basically terrorize union organizers so that they can make their clothes cheaper going to be held accountable for violating the constitution? After all, prohibition itself was an amendment, so we've already set the precedent that the constitution isn't just instructions for the government, it's instructions for all of us. If we invade a country, killing a bunch of people, wouldn't THAT violate your new pet amendment? Hell, wouldn't DEFENDING OURSELVES do harm as well? So what, are we then supposed to qualify it as 'net' harm? How do you do that?
"It would be foolish to expect those costs to disappear due to legalization. It might be wiser to assume their increase."
Um, no. I've met one (ONE!) person in my life that doesn't do illegal drugs for the sole reason that they are illegal, and would do them in an instant if they were. And while that's anecdotal, just look at the underage drinking 'epidemic' that we have in this country. Do you think that underage drinking would become even worse (if that's even possible) if the drinking age was lowered down to 18?
"The reasons for and against legalization often seem more like constructs that are used to defend purely moral arguments in which the rules of evidence and debate do not suffice...For now, I am confident that moral clarity will be enough to halt efforts like Stamper’s in their tracks."
Huh? While ADDICTION is intrinsically destructive, drugs themselves are not. And while it IS purely a moral argument to say 'drugs are bad, you shouldn't do them. in fact, if you do do them I'm going to knock down your door at 3 am and forcibly remove you to a prison, or at least pay people (and force you to pay them too!) to do it for me', it is in no way based in morality to look at the constitution, and the principles of freedom on which it is founded, and infer that you should be able to do whatever you want provided you're harming someone else. Shoplifting's illegal whether you're doing it because you want something you really can't afford or you're just trying to pay for your addiction, after all. Guns truly are inherently destructive (what do weapons do?), and yet we have an entire amendment dedicated to allowing us the freedom to possess them.
Moral of the story? I hope you enjoy your after-work beer as much as I enjoy my after-work spliff. Don't be falling into the destructive trap that is alcoholism, though! I know it's hard, after all, the government is pushing it on us day-in and out.
It looks like the fellows above did an excellent job of debunking this horrendous piece of "journalism." As is becoming the norm, when one DrugWarrior™ lies, ten freedom loving anti-Prohibitionists swiftly tear the propaganda to pieces.
So, all I will say is this: when I read "...a code that doctors live under and which should be adopted as the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the U.S Constitution: 'Do no harm.'" I about died laughing. You do realize, the government is not practicing medicine? You also must realize that if such an Amendment were added, 90% of the government's work would have to cease, immediately? Thanks for the best laugh I've had in a very long time!
One other thing, why do people like the author call themselves "conservatives?" He must mean conservatism in the sense of "keeping with the status quo, out of fear of possible progress that would force the remaining 12 DrugWarriors™ to apologize for decades of theft, abuse and tyranny."
My understanding of "conservatism" is one of LIMITED GOVERNMENT and FREEDOM. Throw in STRICT ADHERENCE to the Constitution, for good measure. Face it - you are not a conservative, you are a NeoCon Moral Jihadist. One of those individuals who is more than happy to grow government to ANY SIZE, as long as such growth is for the purpose of "moral" enforcement...sickening, purely sickening. If you haven't noticed, the DrugWar™ status quo has been an utter failure for many years! You should ask Hannity or Limbaugh for a job, I hear they have openings in the propaganda department.
The problem is that we must move beyond the black-and-white moral choice of either abusing drugs like there was no tomorrow and totally abstaining.
Those who ABuse drugs the most usually do so for a variety of reasons, many of the having to do with social and mental problems. They find - however brief it may be - relief in drugs like alcohol, heroin and cannabis. Furthermore it should be clear that NO level of enforcement can change this. The most injection users, btw, live in the USA, China and Russia. It's not like those countries don't spend money enforcing the rules.
We need to dust off the old moderation or temperance approach to the problem as go for harm reduction as well.
That's why it is really of less importance whether or not USE goes up or down. What's important is the problem use.
Someone like Stamper knows something else. That prohibiton INCREASES the risks drug users face. That excess mortality should NOT be used to support the prohibition scheme, because they are in fact a consequence of that very prohibition.
Something can't be it's own justification. It's circular logic.
Btw, as Brian C. Bennett has stated repeatedly, the current control policy is about three times as expensive as the damages that the drugs are estimated to cause. Combine that with the current scientific knowledge in the area which is clear: the strictness of enforcement and hashness of punishment does not correlate in any way with the level of drug use in a society. (Can't use links, but search for: The Real Costs of Drug War vs Costs of Drug Use(2005 Update)
That spells "enormous waste" to me.
Actually, I am for complete legalization of all substances. The government has been an absolute traitor to the American people when it comes to drug policy (It helps, of course, to have gullible citizens who embrace the idiotic theories of prohibitionists). The alternative view to a 100 percent legalization policy is the implication that the government has ownership of your body. I think that some clinicians and drug policy "authorities" excessively emphasize the supposed destructive influence of substance use. In my opinion, the typical clinical labels regarding substance use that I keep hearing from trained professionals (many of whom believe in the legalization of all or most illicit substances) are: 1. "Addiction" 2. "Clean/Sober" 3. "Disease"
I feel that we need to discard all of the labels thus mentioned (and many others). They are destructive - and only serve to back the claims of prohibitionists that all illicit substances are "bad." I think that when speaking to others on this subject it is absolutely crucial to speak the truth (Brian, please read carefully) that most use of substances (regardless of their "legal" status in our society) results in no harm whatsoever.
You have a strange (and depressingly irrational)view of human nature. Just because certain drugs are made legal in society does not mean that many more citizens will conclude: "I need to try some of that crack." I give people a lot more credit. Unfortunately, like most pro drug war people, you have zero faith in human beings.
Putting victimless individuals in cages over the possession or mutually agreeable transaction between adults is EVIL.
As Kirk mentioned, when anyone could walk into the local pharmacy and buy Bayer heroin for a nickle per [pure and measured] dose, there WAS no "drug crime".
Google Henningfield+Benowitz
Google tashkin+cancer
To keep Cannabis illegal while tobacco and alcohol are dispensed freely is murderously stupid.
Richard Steeb
San Jose, California
Sounds like Uncle Sammy, in Stamper's bizarro world, would merely be trading one addiction for another. Uncle Sam, having legalized drugs, would then be addicted to the tax revenue accruing from legal drug sales...and would then have a vested interest in ensuring enough people remain hooked to keep (increasingly devalued) ObamaBucks flowing into his oversized coffers.
Yeah, this would work out just fine (*Seinfeld eye roll*).
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!