Thursday, June 02, 2011

Making sense of the drug laws

There is an ongoing debate in this country about our drug laws. Honorable, noble people have argued for stricter laws and honorable, noble people have argued for more lenient laws, or even repeal. There are two sides to this coin and I see them both.

I was a veteran cop back in the late '80's and early '90s when the crack epidemic hit my little town. We learned how stunningly addictive crack cocaine is, and how fast one gets hooked on it. Generally if you smoked it twice you were mentally addicted and would do anything for the third, fourth, fifth rock of crack. I personally know of one guy who over the course of a week, sold all his household furnishings to buy crack cocaine.

Burglaries went up, as did thefts and prostitution. Guys and gals would do anything for the next rock of crack and we were extremely busy.

The legislatures, in their haste to "do something", made possession and sale of crack cocaine a separate offense from the sale or possession of powder cocaine. While powder cocaine was seen as a wealthy habit, crack cocaine was seen as a po-folks habit. I was on the street during those days and I know that crack cocaine did not respect your economic status. Rich folks used it as much as the poor folks, yet the perception existed, and the leges made the crack sentences much stiffer than the powder cocaine sentences.

Today I see that Eric Holder, our Attorney General, has come out in favor of the new federal sentencing guidelines reducing the penalty for crack cocaine. He also wants to apply those guidelines retroactively, potentially releasing thousands of prisoners who were sentenced under the old guidelines.

That's fair. If you're a po-folks inmate who got five years for crack cocaine, and just down the cell block is a rich guy who got 2 years for powder cocaine, then some adjustment should be made to the guidelines.

If you ask me in a weak moment, when I'm sitting at home in jeans and tennis shoes, I might tell you that the whole War on Drugs is a misapplication of tax dollars. My libertarian bent makes me believe that as long as a person isn't hurting anyone but himself it's none of my business. As me the same question when I'm in uniform and you'll get a completely different answer. My job is to enforce the laws as they're written, not to ignore those laws I don't agree with. I don't see a conflict in those positions. Change the law if you want the law changed. Argue that with your legislators, not your police officers.

Don't misunderstand, I believe in punishing those who do wrong. I also believe in fairness in sentencing. I don't agree with Eric Holder much. Mainly I disagree with the man. Yet, this one time, I think he's on the right track.

5 comments:

Rivrdog said...

The L's won't countenance any sort of gradualism here...they want all dope legalized and legalized NOW.

The problem is, none of them, and I repeat NONE of them has looked at the consequences that are predictable.

1. There will still be drug violence. There just won't be as much money at stake, but there will still be territories, turfs, whatever.

2. When it becomes legal, ordinary folks visualize it being sold at Piggly Wiggly. No, for reasons of tort law, no legit outfit will ever sell it, because no insurer would ever insure their business if they did. It will still be street punks selling it.

3. There will be an increase in drug-addled people in view. Now they go and hide from us to take their hits, but when it's legal, we will see them in the parks, on the streets, etc, wasted.

4. There will be huge increase of ER admissions, as the druggies use more of the cheaper stuff. Who pays for that? We do.

5. Those druggies with actual jobs will now feel free to go to work loaded. Workplace safety and production goals become an issue.

I could go on, you get the message though. My plan? I'm glad you asked. Leave the laws in place, just pinch off the industry which is supposed to be enforcing but isn't. Voila! Money saved, tools to dump on the worst of the drug lords still available.

J said...

We need to strengthen drug laws. My little hometown of Tullos is about the only town in CenLa without a prison. Tougher or more drug laws would create industry. CenLa and, indeed, all of Louisiana, needs more jails and prisons.

Anonymous said...

J said...
We need to strengthen drug laws. My little hometown of Tullos is about the only town in CenLa without a prison. Tougher or more drug laws would create industry. CenLa and, indeed, all of Louisiana, needs more jails and prisons.



That is not the way to create wealth. More prisons mean more taxes. No country ever taxed itself into prosperity. The situation becomes like a snake eating its own tail.
And, as Cornelius Tacitus stated: ""The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." It seems we have created thousands of laws to enforce 10 commandments and a Golden Rule.

Marijuana can be legalised with few problems. The hard drugs? Not so much.
There is no easy answer. Legalities aside, the decision to abuse drugs is a moral one. And therein lies the problem for most addicts.

Hobie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hobie said...

It is my belief (note that I use the word "belief" because I have no proof) that in as much as humans have been using mind altering substances as long as humans have existed such use will continue. One is either mentally capable enough to avoid use, to use without abuse (as with alcohol) or is not and must suffer the consequences of that choice. Further though, if the rest of us could rest assured that our negative response to such use/abuse and an attempt to support that use/abuse through theft, robbery, etc even to the use of violent resistance (where appropriate) wouldn't be prosecuted then I might be convinced to support de-criminalization of now illegal drugs.

The thing is, I've been through an incident where we were besieged by an intoxicated (drugs) man who tried to break into our home in his rage. I'm not inclined to see drug use as victimless.

Idiots will forever choose to use drugs, legally or not, just as there are those who choose not to use seatbelts or wear a helmet on a motorcycle. Seems to me the choice is about the same, except, you know, for that bit about violence...