wrote a song about it here it goes....

www.myspace.com/odro

by Ben Marble, M.D. (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 230 diaries, 349 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 9:07:59 AM

  (0+)

.  .  . you failed to capture the real costs of drug use.

The libertarian part of me had long said, "The only victims of drug use are drug users, and if they are stupid enough to mess with their brains, let 'em."

Thing is, the drug users are not the only victims.  My wife has been a registered nurse a pediatric hospital for ten years, and I get to hear the horror stories from the hospital, of perfectly healthy children who had their brains turned to jelly by shaken baby syndrome, of kids horribly neglected and abused, and she has said, many times, that she has never, not even once, seen a case of child abuse (and all of the cases she sees are ones bad enough to put a child in the hospital) in which the adults responsible weren't using drugs and/or alcohol (usually and, not just or).

Please, capture for us the costs of a healthy baby who is permanently injured because his father was FUBAR on drugs.  Tell us, what monetary costs are there when an unborn child is subjected to his mothe smoking crack every day.  Document for us, if you can, the costs to taxpayers and to society when a teenager is reared by no one because whatever adults are supposed to be caring for him are the walking brain-dead.

by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 194 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 9:32:12 AM

  (0+)

And of course that doesn't happen NOW, because we're all so safe? Tell me, where did your wife get these stories? Some place where drugs are legal? There sill always be bad people in the world. Difference is, that parent won't be whoring out their 10 year old daughter to get another fix because it's affordable - and also because their spouse won't be afraid to call the police because their drug use makes THEM a criminal too.

by Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:01:39 AM

  (0+)

Yes drugs are a huge industry. And everyone involved schemes a way to get their share of "the take."

From a capitalist market economic point of view its a three legged stool: on one side there is "a demand" for the product, i.e. humans (and other mammals too) have a natural drive to tinker with their own internal chemistry either through selecting certain foods or intoxicants. The demand.

Capitalism is structured so that certain mechanisms will develop (be developed by entrepeneurs) to service this demand. These are the providers who grow/manufacture, and ship/distribute the product.

This equation would be simple except another group inserts itself into the transaction - a group that plans to make its share of the profits from regulating the flow of product. This group first causes the cost to escalate by creating artificial scarcity (through prohibition) which makes the trade more lucrative - then it preys on both sides of the equation to extract its share of the profit.

Remember all the money being "spent" (by the government) is going TO someone. It goes to law enforcement, the court system and the prison industrial complex *which in recent years has become increasingly "privatized." (You think Halliburton and KBR for example are not involved in private prisons? Look again!)

Imagine for a moment waking up tomorrow in a world where via some stroke of fortuitous magic all illegal substances have disappeared from the planet. That would be a good thing right? Good EXCEPT for the huge "economic dislocation" - that means "UNEMPLOYMENT" of  whole armies of drug warriors, unemployed customs agents, narcotics officers, drug sniffing dogs, attorneys, lawyers, court clerks, guards, prison administrators, prison staff, probation officers, rehab counselors and all the various hangers-on in the drug trade who get a paycheck based on the simple fact that some quirk of human nature causes some people to want to "feel good"  - or at least "not hurt so bad."

We could pave the streets of this nation with gold if we did not waste money trying to regulate other people's behavior in this way. However all these drug warriors are now employed in an industry which is predicated on the proposition that some people like to regulate their own mental state.

We have begin by to admitting that on both sides of the equation there are opportunists and predators whose intent is to rake off fat profits by victimizing the customer. And both sides are equally unsavory. We could eliminate it ALL in a moment of sanity IF we moved "the problem" i.e. changed our thinking, from a law enforcement issue to a health care/risk management issue.  THAT will not (and cannot) happen until we begin to see the predators as a fundamental part of the problem not as the solution. Law enforcement doesn't really WANT to stop illicit drugs because illicit drugs have become their bread and butter TOO. Follow the money... in both directions.

by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 1:14:45 PM

  (0+)

After many years defending drug possession and sale charges, I became immune to the accused's surprised statement that "I had two kilos, not one."  Explaining why this did not make a good defense was one of the easier portions of our initial interview.  The point is that any time you are dealing with an immense industry with little to no oversight on the product, there is going to be a great deal of theft of that product.  And once good officers get familiar with committing perjury, it becomes easier and easier. 

Then, like any giant industry, the drug trade must influence politics.  In my experience, the drug industry lobbies through the banking industry, which profits nicely with deposited laundered funds, and through the various police associations, but sometimes goes directly to the source, making cash payments to legislators.  

And finally, the picture would not be complete without noting the role of the CIA and other covert ops organizations in importing illegal drugs into the United States in order to avoid Congressional oversight over the vast majority of their activities.  The real life Frank Lucas (the gangster portrayed by Denzel Washington in American Gangster) has given a series of interviews recently aired on BET in which he intricately details how the CIA assisted him in importing virtually all of the heroin into the U.S. from Thailand during and after the Vietnam War.  The CIA heroin was so pure that users were dying all over the streets, and Lucas was even supplying the mafia.

Don't kid yourself.  Drugs will never be legalized or medicalized in the U.S.. 

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 539 comments [53 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:19:25 PM

  (0+)

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report finding that there are now a record 2.2 million Americans incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and jails. 

These figures represent the continuation of a “race to incarcerate” that has been raging since 1972. 

With a 500 percent increase in the number of people in prison since then, the United States has now become the world leader in its rate of incarceration, locking up its citizens at 5-8 times the rate of other industrialized nations. 

Check out the following: 

Sad when one of the nations leading "growth industries" is incarcerating people for non-violent crime.  Guard your children from the state.

by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 8:51:30 PM

  (0+)

Prior to 1913, virtually every drug here in the US was legal! If my grandfather were alive, (1894-1985) he'd tell you about the the apothecary down the street from his house here in Cincinnati where you could get anything you wanted, dirt cheap. Back in those days of 60+ hour work weeks  "mother's little helper" was something to look forward to every night to get you through the drudgery of sweat shop employment. Thanks to all those wonderful "do-gooders" out there, (the same folks that gave us Prohibition from 1920-1933) drugs became illegal. Almost a century later, we are all paying a tremendous price because these people thought they knew what was best for all of us. Perhaps if they had been robbed by someone who needed money for a fix or realized what a &@#* mess their self righteousness would cost  this country since the late 1960's there then wouldn't be a drug problem. Also, I might add, my grandfather told me that in spite of the availibilty of narcotics as they were call backed then, the US was not a swarming nation of junkies! Very few people in fact used them & usually moderately. Back then, as now alcohol was the preferred way to get a good buzzzzz! Happy New Year!!

by iman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments) on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 5:09:29 PM

  (0+)

The Previous poster commented: "my grandfather told me that in spite of the availibilty of narcotics as they were call backed then, the US was not a swarming nation of junkies! Very few people in fact used them & usually moderately"

The truth is, NOW - despite prohibition and literally billions of dollars thrown at the issue - anyone who WANTS to obtain a forbidden drug and is motivated, can easily do so.

In any population sample only a small % of the people even WANT to do drugs - the rest are just not inclined to be users or they have other more important or more interesting things to do with their time and money.  The pro-prohibition crowd postulates and propagandizes that if drugs were legal "the majority" of the population would be "stoned" and unproductive. This is a fallacy used to justify prohibition. 

There are so many academic studies, research projects, and books written on the subject one could fill up a lifetime reading and digesting them all -- for an intelligent and articulate overview, try David Lenson's "On Drugs" ©1995 U. of Minn. Pres.

by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 9:08:21 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for writing this piece.

The War on Drugs is the biggest waste of taxpayer money and lives. Where's the accountability? We do need a cost/benefit analysis now to expose this sham.

Read more & Take action: http://www.drugpolicy.org

by Heretic616 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 9:21:53 PM

  (0+)

You just didn't see the benefit because there ISN'T one.

by Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 11:03:04 PM

  (0+)

In 1984, the columnist Sydney Harris wrote:

"If I were asked what I thought was the greatest government scam perpetrated upon the American public, I would unhesitatingly name our so-called war on dope.

"It is a fraud on at least three counts: it cannot succeed, it will continue to suck billions out of the national Treasury, and it will swell the ranks of bureaucratic enforcers and line the pockets of corrupt cops and politicians."

But unlike Prohibition, which was repealed after a mere 14 years, the Drug Witch Hunt has succeeded---NOT in eradicating demonized molecules---but rather in institutionalizing itself as a form of Narco-fascism, a modern-day Inquisition.

Oddly enough, a few people still speak out against this perpetual-motion hog trough of the narcocracy. Thanks for assembling some useful ammunition for us. And let's all root for Ron Paul to keep plugging away. Dr. Paul's position paper in 1988 could be recycled in 2008 with no significant change---because unfortunately, we haven't made any real progress at all in national drug policy!

Here's a quote: "However unsuccessful they were at stopping drinking, government agents did suceed in suppressing civil liberties. We owe wiretapping to the Prohibition era, and warrantless searches of private homes were common. . . And as happens today, government raids on bootleggers often resulted in shootouts with the innocent caught in the crossfire. A government policy calling for total victory, at whatever cost, over something many people wanted, meant inevitable death and destruction."

("The Case for Drug Legalization" by Ron Paul, MD, 1988)

by Oliver Steinberg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 1:26:07 AM

  (0+)

A couple of readers have apparently sent responses about my previous comment directly to me via e-mail. But my e-mail account has them flagged, informing me that opening them "could be dangerous."

I am too uncertain of the possible "danger" to proceed any further, so those responses will go unread and unacknowledged. Thanks anyway.

by Oliver Steinberg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 11:29:39 AM

  (0+)