Randy Cassingham's Blog

That's why I call it the war on some drugs.

What really raises my ire is the politicians putting their hands over their eyes like little children, pretending they can't see the benefits of stopping the war on drugs; whether the anti-drug simply vanished, or whether they were controlled like tobacco and alcohol, the price would drop by a factor of 10 or 100. The pushers and their gang wars would be out of business. The drug lords would be bankrupt within days, and with them would go all the corruption they foster, all the corrupt regimes around the world and the corrupt anti-government rebellions; Colombia would bask in peace, the heroin growers in Afghanistan would have to grow real crops, the dictators of Myanmar would be broke.

Then there are all the legal hangers-on who would have to find honest jobs: drug cops, the DEA, all those prison guards would have to find real jobs and start adding to the tax base rather than swilling down my tax dollars. Isn't something like a quarter of the prison population there just for possession, not for any violent crimes or theft to support their habit? All released; some would even get back the honest jobs they had before being caught.

The world would sure be a simpler more peaceful and more prosperous place.

The price would be some increase in drug use, but probably not an increase in drug deaths, since legal drugs would have to be more consistent and pure, or the legal companies selling them would be sued into oblivion.

I sure would like to live in such a world.

I agree with you 100%. I've also told my congresscritters, but they're Jon Kyle, John McCain, and Jeff Flake -- if you know anything about them, you'll know how much good my telling them has done.

When I say "100%" in this case, I mean it literally; there are no points that you made, no matter how minor, that I disagree with, period.

---

I obviously understand that your congressmen are on the other side of the issue. That said, they do still need to hear your message. If they hear it enough, they'll start to listen. -rc

I agree with you Randy, "no knock" search warrants are an example of rights that we have given up to win this "War on Drugs". A large percentage of our prison population are in jail for drug use. Wouldn't it be more effective if we focused on resolving a person's drug abuse problem rather than throw them in jail? Unless they did something dangerous like drive under the influence of drugs or they are under 21, I see nothing wrong. I don't take illegal drugs myself but feel locking someone up for using an illegal drug isn't the way to attack the problem of drug abuse.

If drugs were regulated rather than flat out illegal, it will probably stop people from creating meth labs which are very dangerous to the general public and a big mess for the police to clean up. In addition violent gangs who sell drugs would disappear due to a decrease in price and no real motive to selling drugs. With regulating drugs we could also tax the drugs using the proceeds to aid in helping people who abuse these drugs. In addition, law enforcement would have more resources to solve other crimes rather than going after so many drug users.

The Duplicity of Government. Maybe that is the reason our present world's drug problem is permitted as status quo.

Everything you have written about the control and use of drugs is 100% correct. Anything else makes no sense.

It makes one think of the quote,"Follow the Money". Where is it? Speculate!

Since our more public involvement in the East, its history is of paramount interest. If nothing else since 1890, and because of the first and second world wars, until present, the hisory of all the governments is rank with duplicity.

Then to top it all, those who are paid to protect become "Wyatt Erps" shooting 90-year-old women after forced entry.

Maybe this is as the man said in the movie, nothing personal, business is business, Government or otherwise. Who's the "Bad Guys"?

This reply is meant as a thank you for your perseverence and pursuit of common sense in and for a society that should be improving and pursuing the same goals.

I've heard other EMTs tell similar stories, including of first-time coke users who cardiac-arrested.

You want to know a funny thing about Afghanistan and opium? According to John Polanyi, Nobel laureate, the WHO says we're facing a massive shortage of legal, medical opiates. What we need to do is license the Afghan poppy fields. Still funnier: medical opium pays the farmer more than the illegal crop. See http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/media_centre/opeds/04_oped

My bend on the rant is that we need to funnel some of the money from the war on crime into the education and rehabilitation of some of its casualties. While I agree that drug use should be a personal decision, I think that the government would be better off helping the people who can't handle the ramifications of addiction, one of which is the return to jail for the variety of crimes that are committed to pay for the habit.

Education of young people about the true effects of drugs, like the cokehead who blew out his brain cells, has proven to be a factor in rejection of drugs in later life. And finally, putting some of the funds into raising people out of poverty so that their reality is no longer so hope crushing that escape into drugs is preferable. I would rather have a government that focuses on helping its people instead of finding new ways to penalize them.

I would have to say that I agree whole heartedly with Felix. I have often discussed this with my peers and I would almost be willing to go even a step further that Felix.

I feel that drug education is the answer. The "War On Drugs" is a farce. It is nothing more than a way for government bureaucracy to grow and sustain itself. It's a total waste of billions of tax dollars better spent elsewhere.

Give the drugs to the addicts for free if that's their choice, with obvious limits of course. I'd rather spend a relatively small amount on providing them with the drugs they desire and on educating the children than the high cost of the crimes the addicts currently perpetrate against innocent individuals and the ridiculous war on drugs.

The story you cite shows two problems which should be dealt with in public policy: the "no-knock" warrant, and its proximate cause, the "war on drugs". Both appear to me as symptoms of the urge by those in power to hold on to that power. By fomenting fear in the populace over the supposed ills of drug abuse, politicians and contractors are able to dupe the citizens into handing over large amounts of funding to purchase things like prisons, drug detection equipment, an endless parade of "training seminars" and so forth.

You have rightly compared the situation to the Prohibition days and rum-runners. Imagine the opportunity to convert all that illicit trade into taxable transactions. A user of cocaine or marijuana (just to pick two popular "brands") would see a lower retail price, due to the lack of smuggling costs; the state or federal government (or both) would see a steady tax revenue, and the costs of running prisons would plummet! [Might have to convert some to luxury resort hotels?]

Without the fear of the drug boogy-man, police could concentrate on preventing or subduing violent offenders like robbers and rapists. And without the justification of the drug bust, there might be no justification for no-knock entries.

I have some notion of the emotion that overtakes one in that sort of situation. Years ago, when I lived in one of the poorer sections of Philadelphia, my home was entered by police officers with a warrant. They did knock on the door, but when I opened it, they burst in with guns drawn, pushed a sheet of paper into my hand, and started up the stairs to where my girlfriend was in the shower. We were held at gunpoint for about a quarter-hour as they demanded to know where the drugs were hidden (we had none). At one point, perhaps five minutes into the ordeal, I was showed a badge. But they had not identified themselves as police upon entry, and we were justifiably terrified. When I later looked at the sheet of paper in my hand, it was a carbon, barly legible, of a search warrant, listing "suspected drug paraphanalia" as the probable cause. In those days (early 70's), the Philly cops considered a cigarette lighter "paraphanalia".

I have always been grateful that there was also no weapon in that house, so that I was not tempted to try defending myself before these heavies identified themselves. I suppose I should also be thankful they didn't have the authority to break in the front door - at least I was spared that expense. Such behavior draws its only justification from the fear-mongering performed by public figures who use that fear to gain power in public office. Others use their positions to make profit from those in office through corporate contracts. Both these drains on public trust and public funds are forms of corruption that are harmful to a democratic republic.

Randy, I must concur with you on your drug views.

It is painfully obvious to me that extended heavy drug use causes mental degeneration on several fronts. I have a neighbor who proves that to me on a daily basis. He is exceptionally high-IQ, but has lost the motivation to do much of anything except sit on his back porch, listen to 70's music, smoke dope and drop the occasional heavier stuff - mescaline and whatever. While there are those who can control occasional light drug use, there are also those who can't. It's probably been that way since the dawn of man.

Somewhere along the way our government took upon itself the role of moral guardian vis-a-vis drugs, with the mandate of legislating morality by determining which poisons we may and may not consume. This mandate is riddled with hypocrisy.

The government is already in the drug business, which immediately raises one's eyebrows about the role of "moral guardian". It licenses and taxes alcohol in practically all forms. It licenses, taxes and subsidizes tobacco products in much the same way. It supports the big drug companies (via the FDA) in their quest for ever more and better (read "lucrative") drugs to solve any problems we might have by simply taking a little pill. However, it condemns plants (marijuana, mushrooms, etc.) and manufactured products (meth, cocaine and such) as being evil and unlawful.

As you stated, it creates the same environment for drugs that prohibition created for alcohol.

I suspect that if the government were to pull its head out of its collective butt, it would realize several things:

First, an inordinate amount of resources - money and manpower - is being spent to apply this "moral" legislation. The numbers are out there -- I just haven't taken the time to pull them this morning.

Second, many lives are lost because of the actions taken by local and federal government agents to support this misbegotten policy. While some of those lives are criminal lives (and therefore might be considered acceptable collateral losses by some), other lives lost are those of people such as the 92-year-old woman in your article. She was wrongfully gunned down by agents following some kind of perverted "due process" that didn't take her life and liberty into account. Add in kids on the streets, innocent bystanders, etc.

Third, by its quasi-prohibition stance against the drugs on it's "bad" list, the government has created a thriving drug network in this country. The drug dealers have taken over neighborhoods, wreak violence upon citizens, take in huge amounts of money, and thumb their noses at the politicos who created the policies that allow them (the dealers and distributors) to thrive and prosper.

I have to think that if the government took a step back and examined the economics of the situation, it would see that rather than wasting money fighting a condition that it perpetuates, it might make better sense to legalize most drugs and take its own cuts of all drug proceeds (as it does today with alchohol and tobacco) instead of letting that go to the dealers. This would have at least four immediate effects - the demise of the drug underground (no longer necessary), the cessation of resource wasted on current drug policy, more money in the government coffers, and fewer lives snuffed.

Heck, they might even be able to resuscitate the Social Security program with the money they could bring in, although I doubt that would happen. Perhaps they could build another useless bridge somewhere instead....

Drug use = health issues. Alcohol use = health issues. Both impair judgement, manual dexterity, etc. Both should be treated in a simlilar fashion.

Regulate them to ensure safety of product for consumers, tax them (thereby wiping out most of the drug-related underground economy and helping fund medical care for abusers), and get to work on things that really impact the well-being of our society.