BajaNomad

the crime wave that baja is experiencing.......

Bajabus - 11-22-2002 at 09:08 PM

especially in the north, is a direct result of the failed drug policies that have been implemented in the last 40 years. Witness the post about the missing seaman in the news section. It is appaling that the drug lords get so rich off this misguided politic and that entire generations are sacrificed to maintain an ozzie and harriet, head in the sand, just say no approach to drug abuse. The lure of get rich quick and screw em before they screw me idealism is laying waste to thousands with bullets and violence instead of needles. There has to be a better way, we must be willing to change and try something else.....it is obvious that almost half a century of current policy has failed. Anyone can see for them selves in Cabo, TJ or just about any town in Baja.

JESSE - 11-22-2002 at 09:52 PM

I totally agree with you, illegal drugs are causing an incredible amount of problems, corruption, impunity,crime, and on and on, i think is very obvious that only legalization can end this mess, but the problem is that people in the upper echelons of goverment on both sides of the border are somehow profiting from this, here in Mexico it is so obvious that the Arellano felix, the Carrillos, and the Zambadas, are Drug lords that work for a higher power, and in the US it seems very strange that considering the huge movements of money and drugs, theres never any drug lords aprehended.

This whole thing stinks, and it stinks all the way up to both our federal goverments.

JESSE - 11-23-2002 at 02:42 AM

I know, drug dealers just love the policies of our countries, the Drug war keeps the prices high and the business going, these days you can find drugs anywhere at anytime, and its pretty clear this is a total failure, i just cant understand why goverments are willing to sacrifice thousands and thousands of its citizens just to keep an image alive. Legalization is the most dangerous and scary word for the Drug dealers, and like you said, unfortunatelly in the near future this issues is not being considered by our politicians.

How many thousands of kids have to die in order for the politicos to realize that this policy is ridiculous?

Bajabus - 11-23-2002 at 05:57 PM

We are talking about a lot of money per year here. Money that could be better put by both sides of the border into education and job training for a start

Here are some stats on what we will spend. I don't know what Mexico will spend. or Baja specifically that would be interesting.

The U.S. federal government will spend over 19.2 billion dollars at a rate of about $609 per second on the War on Drugs this year.
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy

State and local governments will spend at least another 20 billion.

Source: Drucker, Dr. Ernest, (1998, Jan./Feb.). Public Health Reports,, "Drug Prohibition and Public Health." U.S. Public Health Service. Vol. 114.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People Arrested for Drug Law Offenses this Year

Arrests for drug law violations in 2002 are expected to exceed the 1,579,566 arrests of 2000.

Someone is arrested every 20 seconds.

Source: Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People Arrested for Cannabis Law Offenses this Year

In 2000, 46.5 percent of the 1,579,566 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for cannabis -- a total of 734,497. Of those, 646,042 people were arrested for possession alone. This is an increase over 1999, when a total of 704,812 Americans were arrested for cannabis offenses, of which 620,541 were for possession alone.

Source: Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People Incarcerated for Drug Law Offenses this Year

Approximately 236800 people are expected to be incarcerated for drug law violations in 2002.

About 648 are locked up every day.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preventable HIV Infections this Year

Nearly 4,000 new HIV infections can be prevented before the year 2003 if the federal ban on needle exchange funding is lifted this year.

About 10 new cases could be prevented every day.

Source: Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My Rant!

Dave - 11-24-2002 at 12:03 PM

I'm sorry but this liberal just can't get excited about illegal drug usage and its consequences. While intellectually I understand that some people with addictive personalities are at great risk, it comes down to this:

No one that I know of has started down the road to addiction involuntarily. People CHOOSE to do drugs. While I am no angel, (child of the sixties and experimented with all illegal drugs) I also realized that If caught there would be penalties and I was prepared to accept them. As far as I'm concerned, folks who abuse are candidates for "Darwin awards" and are not worthy of my concern.

Now, what should be done?

Legalization:

Are we really ready to include pot, cocaine, opiates and all the rest with legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco? Legal drug abuse costs our society MUCH more that illegal drugs do. And rational thought will tell you that if legalized, drug usage will increase. Don't we have enough problems with drunk drivers that we need to be concerned about "high drivers" or both? Sure legalization would destroy the smuggling business but would it decrease drug usage? Besides, I personally don't give a S**t about drug smugglers. They wouldn't be in business if people didn't break the law by using their product.

Education and prevention:

Show me an effective program and I'll buy it. So far, the best minds have failed to come up with any way to circumvent human nature. Free will is a tough thing to crack. That's why people break laws.

Treatment:

The Chinese communists had a novel solution. Opium use was epidemic. They lined users up against a wall and shot them. Use declined dramatically and rapidly. A bit extreme for us but some way to isolate abusers from drugs is needed. The thought of jailing everyone who abuses is uncomfortable for this liberal but I know this to be true:

NO ONE while in jail has ever robbed or in any way harmed the innocent public to support their habit.

If we were to explore tougher measures against drug abusers I would suggest this:

Uniform penalties for illegal drug use. Jail not just the ghetto crack user but the Wall Street banker and teenage experimenter. Anyone who remained drug free for a specific period would have their record expunged and would receive full pardon. For those who simply could not resist, send them back to jail. Give them ALL the drugs they want. With luck they wouldn't serve out their sentence.

If people considering illegal drug use knew that if caught they WOULD go to jail, drug use would dramatically drop. The drug lords in Mexico would be out of business and drug use down here would fade away.

BajaNomad - 11-24-2002 at 01:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave
Jail not just the ghetto crack user but the Wall Street banker and teenage experimenter.
Reality though is that those with better resources for better representation will get better judgements through the legal system as it stands today.

--
Doug


[Edited on 11-24-2002 by BajaNomad]

Dave - 11-24-2002 at 01:43 PM

Today?s reality can be replaced. If strict possession and sentencing laws were enacted taking discretion away from judges, crack heads and Jebb Bush's daughter might share jail cells. One or two examples like this would scare the crap out of middle class parents. We would see a dramatic decline in recreational drug use.

JESSE - 11-24-2002 at 02:30 PM

I say legalize it, and then tax the hell out of it, i know this is an issue that is very complex, but the drug industry fuels so much crime, terrorism,and corruption.

Lets look at whats happening in countries where drugs where decriminalized and go from there, i am sure theres plenty of good and bad things to discuss.

Dave - 11-24-2002 at 04:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JESSE
I say legalize it, and then tax the hell out of it.


Has that stopped legal (alcohol,prescription drugs etc.) drug abuse? Nope. And if you taxed the hell out of it the hard core abuser would resort to theft to buy it.

reefrocket - 11-24-2002 at 10:06 PM

My belief is that taxing the hell out of drugs simply wouldn't work. You would be just trading one gangster for a political gangster. An example of this is the TAX on tobacco and alcohol criminal are still very active in the fields of endeavor. The only way the dangerous criminal would get out of the bussiness is if it wasn't profitable. So make the drugs avalible at 'like resorts' (that you can't leave till legally not under the influnce to the point of being a hazard to the populace) very cheap. Therein NO profit except to the ones that would reduce their prices as competion for the ones that wouldn't go to these places. Make the use of drugs out side of these places the crime and not call it illegal drug use but "willful reckless endangerment of the public" with a FIX term of service in a public work facility where they would be a benefit to society not, a prison where non-social vocations and mental/emotional damage is the only result.

Just my thoughts on the subject.:saint:
I know some wher in there booz is going to ventured as to be included but it might be a starting point?

Stephanie Jackter - 11-25-2002 at 12:30 AM

I know you all are putting out your best efforts to offer up a solution to the drug problem, and you may call me a defeatist, but the bottom line is that there is no solution. Every one of your proposals has loopholes in them a mile wide to which anyone seriously intent on staying wacked on drugs will always be able to get through. Unless we take the draconian steps of lining people up against the wall for one last shot to the head, we don't get rid of drug addicts. And then we'd be stuck having to overthrow the crappy government that did it. That's the bottom line here.

I grew up under the negligent eye of an alcoholic mother and became a pot addict as soon I was able to get away from her at the age of 16. I've seen addiction from both sides and can tell you that its a personality flaw. Even if we conquer one certain addiction (and I have done that with a few, the most difficult and deadly one being cigarettes, by the way), there is always another to take its place. Until you figure out a way to cure this particular brain glitch nothing in the world will change.

Add to that the hypocrisy that our government takes toward different drugs (alcohol-OK?, marijuana BAD???), we will never have a solid ground from which to stand and tell our children not to do drugs. Even saying the phrase "alcohol and drugs" makes me grit my teeth at the big lie our society seems to believe about the acceptability of one and not the others. If I'm ambivalent, imagine what your average 17 year old must feel about how two faced our drug policy is.

If it weren't for knowing damn well how much impact the most legal drug in the world had on my childhood and my mother's whole lifetime, I might say to legalize marijuana at least. But I also know that my memory is half shot from many years of pot use and I still have a hacking cough in the mornings between what that and my two pack a day cigarette habit did to me. And I'm sure you didn't want to be on the road with me after a couple of joints. I've been off it all for many years now, but the impact on my life still lingers. How would cops test for pot influence on someone's driving, by the way? I don't think there is a way short of violating a suspect's rights by drawing blood. Correct?

And last, but not least, what would I possibly tell my children if they come to me and have gotten addicted to meth, crack, heroin, or extacy because they were legal. I still am a functional addict and note daily that I have passed those tendencies to my kids. But my whole life at this point is dedicated to insulating them from the drug world and making sure their other influences don't have those tendencies. Legalization would just compound the difficulty of my mission.

Having said all that, I do agree that there are many people rotting in prison on my tax dollars who do not pose a violent threat to me and mine, while rapists and child molesters are let off on good time because of overcrowding. The penalties for pot sales need to definitely be lessened and growing one's own should probably be decriminalized. I remember feeling very degraded when I did smoke pot, at the fact that I had to deal with mafia idiots (people I would never give the time of day to in any other social setting), in order to get my fix, while friends of mine got busted in on as if they were mafia, thrown up against the wall with guns to their heads by the policem for just growing a few plants to meet their own needs. Government policy does turn logic on its head sometimes.

Rant over.....for now...-Stephanie

steph

JESSE - 11-25-2002 at 03:15 AM

Steph,

How would you deal with teacjing your kids about drugs and alcohol? i have a 17 yr old brother and i dont know if i should be hard and tell him that i will kick his fanny if i find out hes doing something, or if i should drink a few beers with him and explain to him that it is fine to do it ocasionally.

I am thinking :?:

Stephanie Jackter - 11-25-2002 at 12:19 PM

It's a tough one, Jesse. I like the way the french do it - letting the child take a little wine with the meal just as the parents do and showing them moderate consumption by example. But would it work in my house? That's probably a whole nother story. Oddly enough, although my mom's an alcoholic, I inherited my father's aversion to alcohol. It makes me sleepy and gives me hot flahes. I've always been grateful for that metabolic flaw as I've seen the lives of close friends from high school destroyed completely by alcohol.

Having said that, I have a lot of problems with what to say to my children in general about addiction and moderation. And my life patterns tend to not show them moderation by example. So what can I say without being a hypocrit? I have told my kids how good pot made me feel and at what cost to the rest of my life those transient good feelings were. But I think the parent can only really reinforce what he or she wants by example, and I have a hard time doing that. Set an Entenmans golden cake with chocolate frosting in front of me and self control still goes out the window!

I wish I had the answers. The only thing I know is that the problem with drug addiction in this country is so huge that answers are very hard to come by. -Stephanie

reefrocket - 11-25-2002 at 11:20 PM

Steph, You got this so profoundly right like it was right out of my head.
Quote:

I wish I had the answers. The only thing I know is that the problem with drug addiction in this country is so huge that answers are very hard to come by. -Stephanie


Stephanie Jackter - 11-26-2002 at 01:23 PM

Reefrocket - It was a little scary running around in your brain like that, but I'm glad I managed to pull out some of the good stuff.

Grover - Your comments are probably on the money. Who knows if your or my plan of general honesty about the effects of drugs will work, but one thing we know is that smokescreen programs like DARE, which avoid completely talking about the "pleasurable" side of drugs, have been abominable failures. Eventually the kids will try a drug and go "boy did they lie to me about that!" and then the whole message becomes a lie to the kid.

Do you happen to have any links on that Paxil story? I seem to have missed it.- Stephanie

Dutch VS USA figures

Bajabus - 12-7-2002 at 10:36 AM

David, I belive it is a common misconception that if soft drugs were de criminalized that use would increase. Every country that has been willing to honestly approach the problem and not interject factless baseless personal opinions has seen improvments.

Here is just one countries statistics

Use of marijuana by older teens (1994) USA 38% Dutch 30%

Use of marijuana by 15-year-old (in 1995) USA 34% Dutch 29%

Heroin addicts (in 1995) USA 430
per 100,000 Dutch 160 per 100,000

Here are the really sobering and telling figures

Murder rate
(in 1996) USA 8.22 per 100,000 Dutch 1.8
per 100,000

Crime-related deaths USA 8.2 per 100,000 (1995) Dutch 1.2 per 100,000 1994)

Incarceration rate (1997) USA 645 per 100,000 Dutch 73 per 100,000

Per capita spending on drug-related law enforcement USA $81 Dutch $27

The following is an excerpt from a letter to Bill Clinton in 2001 by Fredrick Polak, M.D. a psychiatrist at the Drugs Department of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service and Member of the Board of the Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation.

"In my country, and in many others, complaints increase that necessary and rational developments in drug policy -- such as the establishment of safer injection rooms, and regulated drug supply to Dutch cannabis "coffee shops" -- can not be implemented because of the UN drug conventions. Yet the experience gained in Holland, with our liberal policies, shows clearly that the basic suppositions underlying drug prohibition are wrong. We do not have more, but fewer addicts. Yet you ignore the lower levels of drug use and incarceration in the Netherlands, and attack us ever more fiercely about producing Ecstasy -- as if the drug trade can be blamed exclusively on the country where production takes place. The truth is really very simple. As long as there is a strong demand for drugs, there will be production, and criminalization will only make the trade more lucrative. The important question is not where the drugs come from. The point is that they should never have been made illegal.

I hope you don?t mind my, at this point, getting more personal. It is rumoured that you believe your brother would have died of his drug use if drugs had been legalized. I think this is an unfair supposition. The chances for drug-dependent people to lead a normal life are definitely better in a more liberal system. Tragic experiences with drug dependence among your family or friends do not provide evidence for continuing drug prohibition because they are largely a consequence of drug prohibition itself.

There is not just one way of regulating the drug market. My advisors tell me it is not difficult to conceive various systems, all of them better than the present situation of leaving the drug market to criminal forces. In your country, the term "legalization" is sometimes used as an invective but, in reality, legalization means regulation of the drug market by responsible government. Use and abuse of drugs will increase only marginally, or even decrease. Just as it is now, levels of drug use and preferences for specific substances will be determined mainly by cultural trends and social developments. Governmental policies can only marginally influence these trends and preferences, and should concentrate on promoting responsible, controlled use and limiting the risks involved.

The first thing we need to do is to abolish the worldwide, uniform regime of prohibition so as to enable individual countries to find their own solutions. It was the wrong decision not to keep the evaluation of UN drug policies on the agenda of the summit, as Mexico proposed. How can I explain to my compatriots back home that a policy so controversial, so costly, and so ineffective, never comes up for serious evaluation? Why is it that, disregarding all criticism, the United Nations continues and even intensifies drug prohibition?

Bill, how can you expect us to continue supporting policies that have proved so damaging and counterproductive?"



Dutch VS USA figures

Bajabus - 12-7-2002 at 10:38 AM

David, I belive it is a common misconception that if soft drugs were de criminalized that use would increase. Every country that has been willing to honestly approach the problem and not interject factless baseless personal opinions has seen improvments.

Here is just one countries statistics

Use of marijuana by older teens (1994) USA 38% Dutch 30%

Use of marijuana by 15-year-old (in 1995) USA 34% Dutch 29%

Heroin addicts (in 1995) USA 430
per 100,000 Dutch 160 per 100,000

Here are the really sobering and telling figures

Murder rate
(in 1996) USA 8.22 per 100,000 Dutch 1.8
per 100,000

Crime-related deaths USA 8.2 per 100,000 (1995) Dutch 1.2 per 100,000 1994)

Incarceration rate (1997) USA 645 per 100,000 Dutch 73 per 100,000

Per capita spending on drug-related law enforcement USA $81 Dutch $27

The following is an excerpt from a letter to Bill Clinton in 2001 by Fredrick Polak, M.D. a psychiatrist at the Drugs Department of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service and Member of the Board of the Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation.

"In my country, and in many others, complaints increase that necessary and rational developments in drug policy -- such as the establishment of safer injection rooms, and regulated drug supply to Dutch cannabis "coffee shops" -- can not be implemented because of the UN drug conventions. Yet the experience gained in Holland, with our liberal policies, shows clearly that the basic suppositions underlying drug prohibition are wrong. We do not have more, but fewer addicts. Yet you ignore the lower levels of drug use and incarceration in the Netherlands, and attack us ever more fiercely about producing Ecstasy -- as if the drug trade can be blamed exclusively on the country where production takes place. The truth is really very simple. As long as there is a strong demand for drugs, there will be production, and criminalization will only make the trade more lucrative. The important question is not where the drugs come from. The point is that they should never have been made illegal.

I hope you don?t mind my, at this point, getting more personal. It is rumoured that you believe your brother would have died of his drug use if drugs had been legalized. I think this is an unfair supposition. The chances for drug-dependent people to lead a normal life are definitely better in a more liberal system. Tragic experiences with drug dependence among your family or friends do not provide evidence for continuing drug prohibition because they are largely a consequence of drug prohibition itself.

There is not just one way of regulating the drug market. My advisors tell me it is not difficult to conceive various systems, all of them better than the present situation of leaving the drug market to criminal forces. In your country, the term "legalization" is sometimes used as an invective but, in reality, legalization means regulation of the drug market by responsible government. Use and abuse of drugs will increase only marginally, or even decrease. Just as it is now, levels of drug use and preferences for specific substances will be determined mainly by cultural trends and social developments. Governmental policies can only marginally influence these trends and preferences, and should concentrate on promoting responsible, controlled use and limiting the risks involved.

The first thing we need to do is to abolish the worldwide, uniform regime of prohibition so as to enable individual countries to find their own solutions. It was the wrong decision not to keep the evaluation of UN drug policies on the agenda of the summit, as Mexico proposed. How can I explain to my compatriots back home that a policy so controversial, so costly, and so ineffective, never comes up for serious evaluation? Why is it that, disregarding all criticism, the United Nations continues and even intensifies drug prohibition?

Bill, how can you expect us to continue supporting policies that have proved so damaging and counterproductive?"



Dave - 12-7-2002 at 03:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajabus
David, I believe it is a common misconception that if soft drugs were de criminalized that use would increase.





Maybe not use as a whole but among those who currently use and abuse it would. I know the threat of penalties made a difference when I used and had there been none I would have used more frequently.

Unless one is sociopathic by nature law DOES make a difference when it comes to antisocial behavior. It is the unequal/lax enforcement of the law that leads to more abuse. A criminologist proposed this experiment. Eliminate the penalties for murder committed on Tuesday and Thursday. I'd bet Monday and Wednesday would be much less violent. Wouldn't you?

like I said

Bajabus - 12-7-2002 at 03:24 PM

Abuse is the problem.......not use.

Here is a little ditty that maybe aint so witty.

Once upon a not so long ago some dudes thought they were a sittin pretty, way down yonder in a smallish baja city.

But then much to their chagrin a local capitano found them with their kilo and locked them up while grinnin.

Well no problemo mi amigos because now the capitano is drivin a brand new Chevy, while our little gringos are back in the land o' plenty.

So if you wonder why some paths to gettin high are blocked by moral values, it's cause guys like the capitano like countin their dinero.

Bajabus - 12-7-2002 at 04:08 PM

Dave while I respect your personal opinion, that's all it is, a personal opinion. The facts speak differently.

Also;

When speaking of anti social behavior, how can you compare pot smoking with murder? Are you saying that an individual that choses to to use pot in the privacy of their own home or out camping is engaged in anti social behavior? Are you also saying that that individual, engaged in a private act deserves to be arrested and jailed at my expense to the tune of thousands;

From the NY times;

"In 1995, city and state officials estimated that it costs $20,000 a
year to house a persons in a municpal shelter, $60,000 in Jail, $113,000
in the state psychiatric hospotical and $12,500 in a supportive
apartment, a kind of SRO model in which residents genrally have their
own kitchens and bathrooms and limited support services on line." (Randy
kennedy "Doors that Offered Hope to Homeless May Shut" New York Times
Oct 4, 1997 p. A 15)"


In other words, it cost more to keep one person in jail than to send
them to Harvard. (current tuitition, room board and books at the
Kennedy School of Government at Havard---is
$40,000. And that is a subdidized price. )

Dave - 12-7-2002 at 04:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajabus
Abuse is the problem.......not use.



Yep. Certainly wouldn't have one without the other.

A question: When does pot use become abuse? I know people who get stupid after one toke.

Most overused word of my youth: ".ear":lol:

Bajabus - 12-7-2002 at 04:21 PM

Substance abuse:

Defined as: A destructive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant (social, occupational, medical) impairment or distress, as manifested by 3 or more of the following in the same 12 month period:

Symptoms:

Need for significant increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxification, or significant diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.

The individual suffers withdrawal symptoms within several hours to a few days after a reduction in the amount of the substance taken over a prolonged period of time:

sweating
hand/body tremors
nausea or vomiting
agitation
insomnia
anxiety
hallucinations or illusions
seizures
The individual takes the substance to relieve or avoid the withdrawal symptoms.

The individual tries to cut down or quit taking the substance, but can't.

A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance and/or to recover from its effects.

The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period of time than was intended.

The individual continues to take the substance despite knowing that it's having a significant or worsening impact on their psychological/physical condition. (e.g., drinking, knowing that their ulcer condition is being worsened)

Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use.

PS: a pot smoker may get stupid while high but at least he does not become the ornery, combative, boisterious, obnoxious fool that most drunks are.

Dave - 12-8-2002 at 02:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajabus

When speaking of anti social behavior, how can you compare pot smoking with murder? Are you saying that an individual that choses to to use pot in the privacy of their own home or out camping is engaged in anti social behavior?


The first question:

No, I wasn't equating pot smoking with murder. You could substitute any offense in the equation. Jaywalking for instance. My point was that penalties ARE a deterrent IF those penalties are uniformly applied.

The second question:

Yes. If society determines (through enactment of law) that a particular behavior is unlawful then by definition it is antisocial.

Your statistics regarding the U.S. vs the Netherlands are misleading. For a moment let's forget about what could possibly happen and compare apples to apples. Both the U.S. and Holland legalize the use of alcohol. Is the abuse rate the same per percentage of populace? How about the U.S. vs Ireland? Or Russia?

Bottom line:

If you can convince me that the roads will be as safe and the workplace as productive by legalizing pot then I'll support your position.

By the way, your above definition more correctly applies to addiction. You can ABUSE any substance without it being repetitive behavior.

Dave - 12-8-2002 at 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajabus

PS: a pot smoker may get stupid while high but at least he does not become the ornery, combative, boisterious, obnoxious fool that most drunks are.


I guess the point I was trying to make was "stupid" behind the wheel can be just as deadly as dead drunk. At least with alcohol,depending on body weight and other factors, one could have one or perhaps two and still operate a vehicle safely. I don't think one could safely say the same about pot.

I'm not a prude. If society wants to legalize then fine. I just don't see how that would save us anything other than incarceration expense. And THAT would be replaced by other expenses like: Lost productivity, insurance costs etc. Look at what years of legalized alcohol and tobacco use has cost us. Now we want to add another drug to the list?

Dave let me respectfully address your points

Bajabus - 12-8-2002 at 12:12 PM

[?No, I wasn't equating pot smoking with murder. You could substitute any offense in the equation. Jaywalking for instance. My point was that penalties ARE a deterrent IF those penalties are uniformly applied.? ]

Point taken however, the penalties will never be a deterrent when the law becomes unenforceable, and we all know that the existing laws are NOT uniformly applied and that a great disparity exists between those that have the financial means to stay out of jail and those who don?t.

[? Yes. If society determines (through enactment of law) that a particular behavior is unlawful then by definition it is antisocial.?]

websters definition of antisocial:
hostile or harmful to organized society; especially : being or marked by behavior deviating sharply from the social norm

According to statistics, depending on geographic region, the number of regular users (at least 20 days out of the past month) is anywhere from about 6% to 10 % with the west coast being the highest (no pun intended). Even if you take a conservative 7% that?s almost 20 million people in the USA alone that are regular users or as you state antisocial individuals that deserve to be incarcerated. By the way that number is climbing every year regardless of prohibition . Compare that with 21% of the population that admits to binge drinking on a regular basis and it seems to me then that law has no basis as a deterrent to anti social behavior when it comes to drug abuse.

[?Your statistics regarding the U.S. vs the Netherlands are misleading. For a moment let's forget about what could possibly happen and compare apples to apples. Both the U.S. and Holland legalize the use of alcohol. Is the abuse rate the same per percentage of populace? How about the U.S. vs Ireland? Or Russia??]

Actually the abuse rate of alcohol in most of Europe is less than the USA and in most European countries the legal drinking age is 16. I am not mixing apples and oranges I am comparing marijuana use in a country where it is decriminalized to one where it is not, as a percentage of population, seems like a fair comparison to me and hardly misleading. Russia and Ireland show correspondingly higher illicit drug use of all types along with alcohol. Cultural differences are at play there and no real prevention programs are being funded to any great extent by their govt?s.
The figures show that a repressive drug policy, as implemented in the U.S., does not necessarily reduce drugs use. A Dutch study said. "(Ease of) availability is not a determining factor for the use of drugs in a country.


[?Bottom line:

If you can convince me that the roads will be as safe and the workplace as productive by legalizing pot then I'll support your position.?]

Of the 8 million people arrested for driving under the influence of an illicit drug almost 80 % admit to also driving under the influence of alcohol. These people are habitual offenders and the laws on the books deserve to be strictly enforced against them. It?s not legal to drive while impaired and I am certainly not advocating legalizing driving under the influence. My point is that the mere possession of marijuana for private use should be decriminalized and the focus should be a policy of harm prevention and education.

[?By the way, your above definition more correctly applies to addiction. You can ABUSE any substance without it being repetitive behavior.?]

Websters defines substance abuse as:
Function: noun
Date: 1982
: excessive use of a drug (as alcohol, narcotics, or cocaine) : use of a drug without medical justification.



[?I guess the point I was trying to make was "stupid" behind the wheel can be just as deadly as dead drunk. At least with alcohol,depending on body weight and other factors, one could have one or perhaps two and still operate a vehicle safely. I don't think one could safely say the same about pot.?]

Again I respect your right to a personal opinion, but that?s all it is, a personal opinion. Personal opinions can be a constructive part of a debate but real conclusions and points can only be made by presenting facts. Then and only then can both sides of an issue be weighed in an informative manner.

[?I'm not a prude. If society wants to legalize then fine. I just don't see how that would save us anything other than incarceration expense. And THAT would be replaced by other expenses like: Lost productivity, insurance costs etc. Look at what years of legalized alcohol and tobacco use has cost us. Now we want to add another drug to the list??]

I would put forth the notion that much more than incarceration expenses would be saved and putting that money towards education and prevention would more than offset a vague feeling that productivity would go down and that insurance costs would go up. In the beginning of this thread I presented figures from our own govt. on the cost of our present approach. Can you point me to any studies that reinforce your ?feeling?.

The bottom line for me is that my little town and many other towns in Baja are being overrun by drug related crime and that they have NO PREVENTION OR EDUCATION program in place. Millions of American dollars are being used to prop up Mexico?s corrupt military and police for a vague feel good delusional war on drugs. If the politicians really want to make inroads then they are beating around the wrong bush.

Dave - 12-8-2002 at 03:18 PM

The difficulty in providing facts vs "feelings" in advocating our positions is that you and I are debating "what ifs". You point to the Netherlands and their relaxed position and then make a "best guess" as to what would happen here. As I pointed out and as you no doubt confirmed, the alcohol addiction/abuse rate percentage is lower there than here. This is something we KNOW. Any speculation about what would happen if we legalized is purely that... speculation. A "feeling".

My position is equally speculative. That strict enforcement and mandatory/sentencing would decrease drug usage. We KNOW that in the short run,such a policy would result in more arrests more convictions more felons more costs. Would that translate into decreased usage? Well, from a strictly economic standpoint the higher the cost the less attractive a product becomes. What would be your threshold? A year in Jail,five, or a five minute date in a cell with Bubba?

The one thing we agree upon is that the U.S. effort to combat illegal drug use is a dismal failure. I maintain it is because,like a failed parent who continually THREATENS a child with discipline,we don't MEAN what we SAY. Do illegal drugs...go to jail. As long as we slap the hand of the recreational user, drugs will continue to pour over our borders, drug cartels will continue to operate in Mexico and kids in your neck of the woods will get hooked on the crumbs. Just my "feeling" of course.

Bajabus - 12-8-2002 at 06:50 PM

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from. You are advocating further criminalization, zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing as a way to achieve the goal of decreased drug use. I can prove to you that it won?t work right there in the USA.
The nations TOUGHEST drug laws are the notorious Rockefeller laws enacted in 1973.
Anyone convicted of selling 2 ounces or possessing 4 ounces of cocaine or heroin, an A-1 felony, has to serve at least 15 years in prison before being eligible for parole. People convicted of possessing half an ounce of narcotics, or of any sale at all ? B felonies ? can get up to 25 years in prison.
There are roughly 21,000 people now serving drug sentences in New York state prisons, constituting about a third of the state's inmate population. Though studies show that most drug users and drug sellers are white, 94 percent of New York's drug inmates are black and Latino. A study of illicit drug use among persons 12 or older by race ethnicity for the years 2000 -2001 from the US Dept of Health Office of Applied Studies puts the white black % more or less equal at about 7%.
So does this approach work? NO statistically speaking, as a percentage, illicit drug use in NY is almost 7% right around the national average. I mean I suppose you could get stricter and just shoot the 7% of the population that uses and that would solve the problem.
John Dunne a former Republican state senator who sponsored New York's draconian drug laws almost 30 years ago, in TV ads that ran before this years election had this to say "In 1973, I sponsored the Rockefeller drug laws, which have been a well-documented failure,". Dunne goes on to urge Gov. George Pataki to ease the laws and redirect resources from prison to rehabilitation.
In New York state, first-time, nonviolent drug offenders routinely receive higher sentences than rapists and murderers. Robert Chambers, the so-called preppie murderer, was given five to 15 years for killing Jennifer Levin in 1988. Joel Steinberg, who beat his 6-year-old daughter Lisa to death in 1987, was sentenced to eight to 25 years. Yet last year Darryl Best, a 46-year-old father of four with no criminal history, was locked up in maximum security for 15 years to life after he signed for a Fed-Ex package delivered to his uncle's house that turned out to contain cocaine.
Dave, stricter enforcement & mandatory sentencing do not decrease drug usage and the 30 year experiment with Rockefeller laws proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. This approach is perpetrating a massive racial injustice against Hispanic and blacks while doing absolutely nothing to curb the use of illicit drugs. Nothing, ZERO Building more jails and incarcerating more people is not the way to deal with a serious health issue. My feeling, while speculative is backed by hard facts that bear me out. Your feeling while also speculative is not backed up by any facts, quite the contrary, the facts right here in the USA point to ?a well-documented failure? with your feeling.
So where do we go from here??..stay the course??..keep our heads in the sand, or are we courageous enough to try something different?

Bajabus - 12-8-2002 at 06:53 PM

Opps sorry about the double post, I edited this one out.
And no I am not high and that is not why it happened.:lol:

[Edited on 9-12-2002 by Bajabus]

Dave - 12-9-2002 at 04:24 PM

Max, your example of New York's get tough policy is far removed from where I'm comming from. It's the recreational user who flaunts the law and drives the market. And I'm not advocating extreme sentences. Just whatever it takes to scare the S**t out of Joe College, mom and pop or a young executive on the fast track to fame and fortune. Fact is, I'm in favor of giving the dealers and cartels a pass because they are simply offering a product no one should be buying. Forget about the big fish. Lock up a few of the high profile little fish and the big fish will starve.

Or this could have another effect. One that you would approve of. If the users I'm targeting (ones that vote or who's parents vote) have enough, maybe they will vote to legalize.:-)

Bajabus - 12-9-2002 at 06:42 PM

Dave, First off I have to say that it has been very rewarding and stimulating exchanging thoughts on the subject with you and others here. How refreshing to not have it degrade into a bunch of accusations and name calling. This is a serious problem that really has a profound impact on Baja and it's relations with the USA. I admire the calm intelligent way you go about presenting your view. I just wanted to get that out there.

Now, how many do you think need to be slapped with jail sentences before you think it will have an effect. I mean if 7% are using that's about 20 million people. Lets say that you incarcerate 25% of that number at a cost of $60,000 per year to the US taxpayer. You are looking at a bill of about 300 billion dollars a year to the taxpayer and when these individuals got out what would happen, back to square one I would imagine. The plan looks good on paper but I don't think it a very practical solution. Are you willing to spend that kind of money and not even address this as a health care issue. Thats about 100 times what the USA spends on a state and federal level in the war on drugs.

Dave - 12-9-2002 at 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajabus

Now, how many do you think need to be slapped with jail sentences before you think it will have an effect.


Far less than the 25% figure you threw out. All it would take is a few well- publicized cases over an extended period. Look at MADD and their efforts to change the mindset about drinking and driving. The designated driver has become popular NOT because it's the right thing to do but because judges are meting out stiff sentences. The threat of REAL penalties and public humiliation works.

I would love to support your position but I think the U.S. isn't sophisticated enough to travel that road. Most of our recreational drug users are spoiled brats and would only temper their behavior if forced to do so. That's why I think education is a waste of time and money.

Stephanie Jackter - 12-9-2002 at 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajabus
Dave, First off I have to say that it has been very rewarding and stimulating exchanging thoughts on the subject with you and others here. How refreshing to not have it degrade into a bunch of accusations and name calling.

AMEN!!!!, Brother Bajabus!!!! Every time I've read a post on this thread, I've thought how nice it is not to have a bunch of clowns trying to sabotage the free exchange of interesting ideas. I don't totally agree with either of you, but am fascinated by the dialogue. Party on, guys....-Stephanie:bounce:

Bajabus - 12-9-2002 at 11:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Bajabus

Look at MADD and their efforts to change the mindset about drinking and driving. The designated driver has become popular NOT because it's the right thing to do but because judges are meting out stiff sentences. The threat of REAL penalties and public humiliation works.




But Dave this is another myth that the facts just don't bear out. Madd has done nothing to reduce drunk driving nor has stiff sentencing:
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2000 America experienced the largest percentage increase in alcohol-related traffic deaths on record. 17,380 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 41,945 total traffic fatalities.

In 2001, 17,448 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol, representing 41 percent of the 42,116 people killed in all traffic crashes (no change from the 41% killed in 2000). (New Fatality Analysis Reporting System, FARS, NHTSA 2002)

The threat of real penalties and public humiliation has done nothing to help the problem. How can you point to this and say it works......I just don't see it and I research this stuff quite a bit.

reefrocket - 12-10-2002 at 01:27 AM

No answers here. Just hours ago watch a program on tv (unknown channel) directed by Woody Harroldson(sp) a supporter of legalization. It covered the 50's to now and all the laws that were passed then rescinded mostly just because of politics and the absolutely staggering amounts of money wasted. Oregon had statistics from before they legalized and after and as I recall there was negligible differance in usage but the cost of incarceration was gone and the dollars were there for other ways of dealing with the ABUSERS. But thats all gone now!

I also want to comment on the way you both (bus & dave) have conducted yourselves on the subject. My hat is off to you both.

Bajabus - 12-10-2002 at 09:20 AM

Hey RR, I wish I would have caught that show. I have satellite internet but no TV.......sigh. It's probably a good thing or I'd be a real zombie and never get anything done. Do you perchance remember the name of the program? Thanks for the tip of the hat by the way. I have been exchanging posts with everyone for so many years it sure would be nice to meet you all in person. So far I've only met elgatoloco, bajabarb, drdrip and jeans.

Dave - 12-10-2002 at 11:58 AM

Quote:
Quote:




But Dave this is another myth that the facts just don't bear out. Madd has done nothing to reduce drunk driving nor has stiff sentencing:


The threat of real penalties and public humiliation has done nothing to help the problem. How can you point to this and say it works......I just don't see it and I research this stuff quite a bit.



Yes the rate jumped in 01 but the median age rate has been steadily declining. Young irresponsible males make up the overwhelming majority of alcohol related accidents/fatalities and until recently,MADD's efforts have focused on an older more responsive populace. That's why designated driver is heard more at middle aged c-cktail parties than college bars.

If you want hard facts that tough laws and strict sentencing guidelines work look no further than Maine. It has the lowest intoxication level and zero tolerance for repeat offenders. Consequently it has the lowest percentage of alcohol related accidents of the fifty states. MUCH lower.

In any case both our proposals have zero chance of becoming policy. Mine because Jebb Bush and like minded middle/upper class American parents don't want their kids going to jail and yours because Jebb Bush and like minded American parents kid's don't.

I think what really irks me is that there is a whole segment of our society that has no respect for the law because of their position and knowing they won't be punished - and another segment that plays by the same rules...and are.



[Edited on 12-10-2002 by Dave]

Bajabus - 12-10-2002 at 01:08 PM

Dave thats a great study and I applaud Maine for it's tough stance. Drunk driving is a reprehensible crime and repeat offenders deserve what they have coming to them. I have tried to find conviction statistics by race for dwi in Maine but have not found any so far. Lets hope the law is being applied fairly.

I also agree with your final paragraph regarding the disparity.


The problem is that drunk driving is a violent crime committed by an individual against another that almost always results in third party deaths and injuries. Most if not all of the violence associated with drugs is over the control/distribution of an enormously profitable commodity or the crimes committed by addicts in order to obtain illicit drugs. As long as the present approach is in place I do not feel that stricter/harsher sentencing is ever going to stop that. If you drink responsibly you should be left alone without govt interference; the same should be true with drugs, especially soft drugs. If you break the law and act irresponsibly/antisocial then they should throw the book at you.