A Radical Solution to End the Drug War: Legalize Everything

[archerships]

Original: craschworks - comments

Via Esquire

Last year, Franklin went public with his conclusions by joining a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Since then he’s made it his business to talk to other cops about the subject, and he’s been surprised by another discovery: “I find that 95 percent of my law-enforcement friends agree that we have to take a different direction, but they’re not sure what direction that is — and probably 60 percent to 65 percent agree that we should legalize.”

And why, exactly, don’t we hear about a possibly overwhelming majority of police wanting to legalize — not just decriminalize, but legalize — major narcotics?

“Selfish reasons,” he says. “There is a lot of money to be made in law enforcement. If we were to legalize, you could get rid of one third of every law-enforcement agency in this country.”

Comments

[kittles.livejournal.com]

I guess it depends on the agency, but we don't get to keep drug money locally. Some of it may filter back down to us, but it is generally tagged to be used ONLY for more drug enforcement.

The main reason you never hear about rank and file officers favoring legalization is because the chiefs of police are a much stronger unit in terms of lawmaking. In my own organization, our chief helped pushed through several pieces of legislation last year that the majority of our officers did not agree with. Chiefs play a political game, and work more with mayors and governors. And it is chiefs who decide how much on-duty time officers can devote to traveling to state capitols to testify regarding legislation. And with police schedules being as crazy as they are, if you don't get support from your chief, you're not going.

This issue is a lot more complicated than Franlin makes it sound. On top of that, "a different direction" has a lot of meanings. And while most officers may favor legalizing marijuana, you're not going to find many who will want to legalize narcotics.

As to the article - 6,000 deaths are a pittance (pardon my lack of sympathy). You can't even measure that against DUIs and make an impact (and comparing drugs to alcohol would not help the drug argument anyhow). And I assure you your overdoses are not going to go away when you legalize - they will increase.

Again, I favor decriminalization. But this article makes it sound like it's a simple black and white issue, and it is most certainly not.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree, I'm sure it's more complicated than the article suggested. I hadn't considered that the rank and file would be too busy to testify.

" comparing drugs to alcohol would not help the drug argument anyhow"

Hmmm...would you clarify? Are you saying that taking drugs causes more harm than drinking alcohol?

"And I assure you your overdoses are not going to go away when you legalize - they will increase."

That seems plausible. What do you think the primary mechanism for the increase would be? For example, it seems like there would at least three possible causes of increased overdose:

1. more people taking drugs
2. people taking higher doses
3. more people mixing drugs

How much do you think that it would be counterbalanced by a decline in deaths as people switched from alcohol and tobacco to drugs with a safer toxicity profile (LSD, MDMA, pot)?

If drugs were decriminalized, how do you think that would change your job? What do you fear the most?

[kittles.livejournal.com]

It's not that they're too busy - but when you work swing shift and only get to pick your vacation days each yeah in January, it's hard to say "hey, this bill is coming up for discussion on Tuesday, can you be there?" IF you have the day off you might need more than one day to swap from sleeping in the day to sleeping at night. And you might be as much as 8 hours' drive from wherever the legislature meets depending on what state you live in. And then you have to consider your career and how it will go when you oppose something your chief supports and vice versa.

In terms of the drugs v. alcohol thing, I'm just saying with all the alcohol-related rapes and violence, alcohol poisoning, and DUIs, it's not a good PR move to hold the current regulation of alcohol up as a shining example of how changing the way we handle drugs will be *beneficial* to society.

I believe drug deaths will increase for the same reason alcohol poisoning exists primarily among those who are just under or just over 21 - people who previously had no access suddenly gain access and over-do it.

I also don't think people will switch from tobacco/alcohol to drugs. They'll do all of it or else just stick to whatever they already liked. But I'm not going to argue that strongly as I have no clue what will really happen there.

I don't know that it would change my job all that much - I think we'd see a slight increase in things like petty theft and burglary as people steal to support habits. But they do this already. We might see more suicides, and a little more drug-related violence (domestics and bar fight sorts of things). But at my level I do not deal directly very much with drug dealers, just the users. So I don't think much would change. It would change a lot for the DEA guys and narcotics detectives, but I can't speak to that.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

it's not a good PR move to hold the current regulation of alcohol up as a shining example of how changing the way we handle drugs will be *beneficial* to society.

Alcohol abuse does cause a lot of problems, it's true. But imagine if organizations with the wealth of alcohol companies, instead of being legitimate, legal businesses were criminal enterprises that could only operate outside the laws. I think most people rightfully agree that, despite the many problems caused by alcohol abuse, it would cause great harm to try to implement a new prohibition.

However, that is exactly the situation we have now with the illegal intoxicants. Given that many of the banned drugs have a lower risk profile than alcohol or tobacco (see Figure 1), it seems inconsistent to continue to ban them. (I think I'm preaching to the choir here, but, I think it's worthwhile to defend our current alcohol policy, as it is so much better than our current drug policy.)

people who previously had no access suddenly gain access and over-do it.

How much do you think the current bans keep drugs/alcohol out of the hands of teens?

They'll do all of it or else just stick to whatever they already liked.

Do you think alcohol users, assuming they could feel the same or better on a drug with a lower risk profile, would stick to alcohol?

It would change a lot for the DEA guys and narcotics detectives, but I can't speak to that.

Maybe they'd switch to patrol work, and lighten the load a bit...:)

If drugs were legal, would you be willing to try them? If so, which ones would you be curious to try?

[kittles.livejournal.com]

I don't propose a new prohibition. I'm just saying it's bad PR to hold up alcohol as a great example for why we should legalize drugs. :)

I don't know who would do what. I think people who don't drink or do drunks would continue that. Some people think alcohol is alright but no drugs are. Some think pot is okay but are scared of "harder" drugs. Who knows.

I would be afraid of what DEA would do without DEA duties. Remember, the ATF was spawned from IRS agents who no longer had bootleggers to chase, right? ;)

I would not be willing to try drugs if they're legal anymore than I'd try them now. I bet I could get a medical marijuana card in Montana right now, and that's essentially the same as legalization. I just have no interest in it.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Remember, the ATF was spawned from IRS agents who no longer had bootleggers to chase, right? ;)

Good point. :)