More readers say: Yes, legalize drugs
I am shocked at the overwhelmingly positive response to yesterday's column favoring the legalization of herion and cocaine. More emails:
-- In yesterdays SUN you said it all! This column should be published in every big city newspaper. It's time we all faced the truth. The drug problem will only get worse unless we change the way we look at how it infects our cities and the failure on the "war" on drugs which is going as badly as the war in Iraq.-- I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts on legalizing drugs. The violence and death related to the profits of the drug trade affect the whole world in many terrible ways. I'd love to see the drug lords' valuable inventories become worthless. The billions spent on fighting the drug trade could be put to better use.
-- I agree with you 100%. Legalize drugs and eliminate the crime. Unfortunately, only you and I and a few others understand this. And, it will probably never happen because the big shots, the drug lords, don’t want to be put out of business. They have the money and money buys a lot of politicians and lawmakers. Arresting the guy on the street corner is akin to taking a bucket of water out of the ocean. It’s the “big guys” who import and distribute the stuff that are the problem. Consider Amsterdam where you can buy drugs most anywhere and also carry a gun. They have a very very low crime rate. Never-the-less, keep up the good work and try to get the message out.
-- My congratulations for an excellent column on Nov 7th. As a libertarian, I think you said what needs to be said by many people, but you said it very well.
In my opinion, Kurt Schmoke lacked courage. He should have stuck to his gunsinstead of backing down. many of us would have supported him.-- I couldn't agree more. A few months ago, a editorlist in the Baltimore Sun wrote about the money states could make by legalizing Marijuana, taxing the growers, along with raking in taxes of selling it,
and the numbers where unbelievable. I wrote to my Senator who represents the county district I reside, and he agrees to the point where he may introduce a bill to legalize the weed. Start small and move forward each year if it takes that long. I support the legalization of all drugs, put the dispensary in the hands of the States, but provide substantial
recovery sites for those who choose to stop. It's a well know fact that the Federal Government has wasted billion and billions of tax money on "War on Drugs". It could have paid for 5 Iraqi wars easily. Had this state taken the lead on this years ago, we wouldn't have the 1.7 million dollar deficient.-- Have enjoyed your column for some time, but have not felt prompted to write until today. I am so pleased to see someone take this position publicly. I have heard and read enough circular conversations on this issue to be quite certain that no one has anything new to offer. As you pointed out, has anyone got any better ideas? Brace yourself for the flak, but I sincerely hope you'll get someone's attention in the political arena
-- How long do you think it will take people to realize that everything you are saying is true? We have been trying punishment and incarceration for what--50 years--100 years? Has it ever worked? You would think at some point the powers that be would see the light. And you know what? I am not at all sure it would lead to new addicts. After all, many people become pushers to pay for their addiction; it would probably take sellers off the streets. And as for the message to kids--they are already inundated with a 100 ways to go "bad," and this wouldn't push anyone over the edge who wasn't so inclined.
-- This is a tremendous column. 100% dead on point. According to my U.S. Illicit Drug Market Value Calculator the city of Baltimore has an annual consumer demand for intoxicant drugs worth between $ 306,843,876 and $ 463,422,644 depending on the estimates used.
http://aleftindependent.blogspot.com/2007/08/us-illicit-drug-market-
value-calculator.html Now let me respond to the questions that you pose. "Would it lead to new addicts? Of course. Would it send a bad message to kids? Yep. Would it cause problems we can't envisage? Probably. And it would be an enormous improvement."Legalization or regulation of addictive substances in a clinical dispensary setting similar to the heroin prescription clinics being used widely in Europe would not increase addiction. It will stabilize the current population and start to age it out while better discouraging new addiction.
Most addiction starts among young people encouraged by already addicted peers who need to sell to support their addiction. Getting these addicts into maintenance or rehab reduce their marketing to new curious young users which would reduce new addicts in that age group.
Also, the clinical setting would serve to change the character of addiction from rebel status to sick people status. This is what has happened in Switzerland according to the official Swiss information service reports about their heroin maintenance program.
Comments
Most street crime in cities today is commited by a small population of hard core addicts Who support their hundreds of dollars a day habits with opportunistic street crime. Get them into maintenance and rehab programs and they leave the crime dependent population.
Whenever the police make a big bust in my community I write letters recommending more indigent drug rehab because successful interdiction means an increase in cost to addicts for the drug for a time. Price increases to the addict are simply passed on to their innocent crime victims in the community in the form of more crime.
Addict dealers, facing a short term price increase, pass it on to their criminal customers. At the same time the dealers seek out more customers in order to keep their cash flow constant. The result then of successful police interdiction today is more crime, more desparate crime and more people enticed into addiction.
Posted by: Pat | November 8, 2007 12:27 PM
Drugs are the lifeblood of organized crime, from terrorists to urban gangs. The way we have waged this "war on drugs" since Nixon has been the same and it has had zero impact. Yet it has funded an epidemic in gang growth/activity, the Taliban and al Qaeda as well as Marxists in Latin America. This idea has been bantered around for a while but it really does make sense. In 10 years we could make a significant impact on gang violence as well as shut down a terror revenue stream. As the law stands right now all we do is flood our jails and our morgues and make criminals rich. Remember Prohibition? All the "Mafia" did was turn from Booze to marijuana, heroine and cocaine. This is a pragmatic approch to a very complex andf serious issue but right now we have no control with legalization we have a great deal of control.
Posted by: Richard Cruit | November 8, 2007 5:37 PM
Most sane people would support leagalization based on the facts, but, the extremists on the right and left control our political arena and they're just not too bright! Thanks Jay, but, until people wise up and stop voting in the baby kissers (another word referencing the posterior instead of baby is probably more appropriate) we'll continue to fight a war of futility.
Posted by: Toti | November 8, 2007 7:19 PM
Addicts should have a choice to either have their drugs dispensed by the government or to receive free treatment for their addiction. If drugs such as heroin and cocaine were free and rendered valueless there would be no incentive for dealers to push drugs to others. Eventually our jails would clear out and the drug culture would disappear. The only reason I can think of that there isn't a program like this now has to do with all the illegal revenue that is generated through the drug trade. Millions of dollars in dealer profits would be lost and bribes to politicians and enforcement officers that help perpetuate the system would dry up. Sales of illegal drugs is a huge industry and the interests of the profiteers always seem to outweigh the greater interests of society. Money is truly at the root of the evil concerning illegal drugs.
Posted by: Michael Baer | November 9, 2007 8:06 AM
Our government is about control, and how best to control the population then to make criminals of them. Your talking about legalizing drugs and the Maryland government is talking about making it a crime to smoke cigarettes. It's about controlling the general public. Wake up we need a new party no more Democrats or Republicans. We need a party that will speak for the people not dictate to us.
Posted by: N. Gonzalez | November 9, 2007 9:24 AM
Please quit creating an underclass through the criminilization of drugs.
legalize them.
Posted by: Jeff | November 9, 2007 11:16 AM
Jeff:
The New York Times alluded to the growing criminal under-class in an editorial last January.
A New York Times editorial, Closing the Revolving Door alluded to this issue in January of 2007.
"The United States is paying a heavy price for the mandatory sentencing fad that swept the country 30 years ago. After a tenfold increase in the nation's prison population -- and a corrections price tag that exceeds $60 billion a year -- the states have often been forced to choose between building new prisons or new schools. Worse still, the country has created a growing felon caste, now more than 16 million strong, of felons and ex-felons, who are often driven back to prison by policies that make it impossible for them to find jobs, housing or education."
Posted by: Pat | November 9, 2007 2:14 PM
Obviously it's fictional, but Hamsterdam in "The Wire" Season 3 was an interesting angle on what you suggest. One rogue BCPD Major is desperate to lower his district crime stats, so he and a few narcotics officers manage to round up all the drug dealers and allow them to sell their drugs in one location covering several blocks of vacant homes. There are many, many problems within those few blocks, but crime drops dramatically. That is, until the higher-ups find out, and it's shut down. Introduces interesting public health issues among the drug-using community, among other things.
Posted by: Nicole | November 9, 2007 5:29 PM
Oh we can't legalize drugs. What would we do with all the people who earn an honest living off the drug trade? What will happen to the DEA agents, the narcotic task forces, the DARE counselors, the drug sniffing dogs, etc...
Posted by: Robert | November 12, 2007 11:59 AM
You nailed it. I have been saying the same for decades, and I think many of us
have.
Probably the drug sealers make big campaign contributions to maintain legal
pressure on
their competitors, thinking they won't get caught.
A big advantage would be that without big profits there will be little incentive
to recruit
new addicts, so I don't think addiction will increase all that much.
Thanks for saying what needed to be said.
Posted by: Phil Marcus | November 28, 2007 3:33 PM
I feel the America is waking up to the reality of drug legalization. After decades of the systematic demoralization, among the outright lies about the nature of drugs, the truth is begining to become evident. The steadily increasing debt of states in this economic climate which the "war on drugs" (Americans) plays no small part, can no longer be sustained. If the rule of common sense will not prevail, then the laws of economics will.
Posted by: Darryl Hacker | February 1, 2009 8:27 PM