Bad ideas in the Drug War

[Tiassa]

Seriously, if I had asserted that things would come to this back when Exosci's posters argued about Pedophile Registration, well, I wouldn't have believed myself.

Now, pedophiles and their registries aren't the point.

But here's a new ill-considered registry:

8. Michigan Lawmaker Proposes a Public Drug Offender Directory

(courtesy NORML Foundation, http://www.norml.org)

Lansing, MI: A bill has been introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives that would create a public directory of drug offenders.

House Bill 5796, known as the "Controlled Substance Offenders Registration Act," was introduced by Rep. Eileen DeHart (D-Westland). The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Criminal Law and Corrections.

Anyone convicted of a drug charge anywhere, but living in Michigan, will have to register for the directory, which will be given to state law enforcement agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The directory will contain the offender's name and any aliases, addresses, physical descriptions and date of birth.

The public will be able to view the directory at police departments, and the bill also calls for an electronic version of the directory to be made available to the public.

The legislation requires drug offenders to register for whatever term is longer, either 25 years following the date of initially registering or for 10 years after release from a state correctional facility.

Just think about it ... with such a law in during prohibition, your grandfather would be a registered offender for drinking a beer.

Start thinking about that term: Registered offender.

Soon enough, everyone will be a registered offender of some sort.

What's next, a Scarlet Letter, or a Lime Popsicle?

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

 

[666]

Tiassa,

It's an attack from the back door. They are using public humiliation (SP?) to try and stem a problem. Instead they should be trying to attack the things that cause the problem. I'm for regulating Maryjane like they do beer, but it is extreamly hard to justify the same for the rest of the drugs out there.

 

[Oxygen]

'Tis a frightening prospect indeed. I thought we had gotten away from the pillories, the gambler's necklaces, and branding. This is a step backward. I would normally describe it as a Band-Aid on a sucking wound, but it's more like Scotch Tape.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

 

[Tiassa]

Gotta throw this in ....

My own brother is a supporter of such a law. In fact, he thinks its the coolest thing he's ever heard, and justified that with perhaps the most unique perspective I have yet to hear become the standard joke:

Jonesing for a fix? Just go online and see who's been busted for dealing in your area. They'd probably appreciate the business.

they could call it superkindregistry.com

Yeah, I know.

Anyway, thanx much Sixes & O2. I'm not sure what I would expect anyone to say; this bill just couldn't be passed up, though. I much appreciate your comments.

And Sixes--I like the alcohol-regulation perspective. Ideally, I'd call that a clean victory.

O2--Does duct tape hurt more when you pull it off body-hair? Band-Aids aside, I'm wondering what it's going to feel like when the wounds are healed and its time to remove the dressings.

thanx much,
Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

 

[Oxygen]

Actually, in all of my experiences with duct tape, I've never had it stick to two things: myself and ducts.

Hmmm...go figure.

 

[Cable Man]

The US Constitution allows for the Federal Government to defend itself against outside invasion and to provide for peace within it's borders via a justice system. Similar rights are granted to states.

Don't fix something that ain't broke. Well, our drug policies are broke so fix them in a way that penalizes the offender without inconveniencing the masses. Knowing thy neighbor sounds good to me.

 

[Tiassa]

CableMan--

I get your point about the Constitution, but even with it in front of me I have to connect a few dots.

But do you realize that this is actually about Nylon? Really--that's it. We used to have a Federal Bureau of Narcotics, whose job it was to learn about narcotic substances and formulate public policy. President Nixon didn't like BoN, because in 1974, they recommended decriminalization of marijuana and also extended study for medical benefits. Thus, the Bureau of Narcotics was replaced by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Since the 1980's, there has been a "Drug Czar" running the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Everything about the War Against Drugs is aimed at a criminal solution. That's fundamentally wrong. It's the reason the rapists, murderers, and other sundry violent criminals get less-than-desirable sentences. It's the reason that holding people in prison is a growth industry in the United States.

Drugs are illegal for commercial reasons. The most part of the darkside of drugs--especially violent crime--exist because of these commercial laws. Nixon's War Against Drugs came after 35 years of jailing people on behalf of Nylon.

That's the problem with any drug crime. To register offenders who shouldn't be criminals at all is ludicrous. Prohibition didn't end because of a massive public need to get drunk; it ended because alcohol-related violence went berserk during Prohibition.

Check some of the early anti-drug propaganda. It's got nothing. It had nothing until a generation of drug users had been generally disenfranchised with various felony drug convictions. Economically disempowered people often turn to nefarious means; world history demonstrates this.

Consider the three drugs they've written special sentencing schedules for: LSD, crack, and methamphetamine.

Did you know that these sentencing schedules regard LSD as more dangerous than crack? Furthermore, Stanford University's studies on addiction showed as much as a 50% hard cure rate for alcoholism under controlled circumstances; this was before the hippies had the stuff. Stanford also tested "linear" professionals: architects, physicists, computer scientests, and so forth, as well as a couple of poets for good measure. There's a History Channel special that features an interview blurb with an old guy who claims his participation in Stanford's LSD program advanced his work on computer transistor boards by a decade.

I mean, any drug is dangerous. We know that. Caffeine will kill more people this year than marijuana. (Jack Herer, in The Emperor Wears No Clothes confirms this with a study of everything from county autopsy reports to insurance company actuarial data.)

There's a new report out I mentioned in my other topic against the War Against Drugs; a few research groups are wondering why the Drug AWareness Network (DAWN) is trying to portray marijuana as more dangerous than heroin. (It is worth noting that Harry Anslinger successfully argued this point before Congress in 1937, only a year after advocating federal subsidies for "decorticators" to maximize a potential hemp crop.)

The point of this raving list of ludicrous examples is that nothing in the War Against Drugs makes any real sense. Cops in New York are killing people for not having drugs on them; the police are conducting no-knock, warrantless raids and charging people with "Detriment to Quality of Life".

None of it makes any sense. And the reason for that is because drugs are treated as a criminal issue. They need to be treated as a health and education issue.

Wow ... um, okay. First, sorry to get so furiously rolling there; I just realized how long I'd gone on. But in way of thin justification, I would say that the Drug War is one of the things that will get me up on my damn soapbox the quickest. For everything Americans desire for their society, I think that treating drugs as a criminal issue is one of the most ill-fated of our endeavors. Not only does it fail to achieve progress, but it's creating social ills that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Did you know that nobody's responsible if the cops raid the wrong house and kill someone? Sorry ... there's a few dead people lately that shouldn't be, and it's really starting to scare me that nothings happening about it simply because the acts were committed for the War Against Drugs. (I'll shut the hell up, now.)

thanx much for putting up w/it,
Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

 

[Tiassa]

http://www.drcnet.org/wol/#editorial

Nonetheless, I think we'll all find this a little bit interesting:

The mass executions of drug offenders this week by the Chinese government, marking the United Nation's "International Anti-Drugs Day," is not surprising -- Amnesty International has been writing about it for at least five years -- but raises troubling new questions in light of the US government's recent decision to enter into cooperative intelligence and evidence sharing with Chinese agencies on drug trafficking. Will US drug agents, employed with US taxpayer dollars, indirectly participate in a totalitarian government's cruelties, even subsidize them?

I'm not sure what else to say.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

 

[Tiassa]

from, once again, weekly e-letter I receive, The Week Online (#144) from http://www.drcnet.org:

A drug bust last week in which two St. Paul, Minnesota, police officers identified themselves as census takers has caused an uproar. Census officials, public defenders and organizations involved in gaining public cooperation with the decennial census have strongly criticized the police action as disruptive to the census effort and possibly a violation of federal law.

The article notes that impersonation of a census taker nets three years imprisonment by federal law.

I expect every police officer involved with the actions in question to serve those three years. "It was a good cause" will not suffice, considering the Census Bureau's mission, and the implications St. Paul police have created regarding the CB.

Furthermore, let's just take a moment and look at civil asset forfeiture. You know, Zero Tolerance, and other dumb ideas? The idea, of course, being that since drug dealers make their money through illegal means, the State should have the right to seize those ill-gotten assets. Thus, I propose that any of those involved officers who accept their paychecks for the period in which this Census-impersonation incident occurred, who then make a house, car, or rent payment, should be subject to civil asset forfeiture, and have their homes, cars, and furniture taken. I might note that, as ludicrous as this proposition is, it is still kinder than real CAF, in which a drug defendant need not be convicted of any crime to lose their property, and by which illegally seized property is rarely returned to its owner(s); furthermore, I think my CAF-penalty against these officers who take payment for their willful violations of federal law is still kinder than real Forfeiture laws. This warning isn't just for the 20 and under crowd: imagine you go out to your folks' house, pop off a joint in the car while sitting in the driveway before you go in. Later that day, the cops arrest you. Guess what? They can seize your parents' house under CAF laws.

I dunno ... cops out lying about their identity, corrupting the name of a federal office, and charging people with ... are you ready for this ... keeping a disorderly house ... hey, I say seize their property and throw these corrupt cops in the hole for twenty years, not just three. Three years might fit the crime, but twenty years should cover the dishonest motives. They're not fit to carry badges.

Of course ... this is a War ....

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited July 10, 2000).]

 

[Tiassa]

I mentioned pedophilia in my topic post--a reference to a different debate here at Exosci. However, I just found this at the website for the National Drug Strategy Network: http://www.ndsn.org/SUMMER99/CAPITOL1.html

Here goes the pedophilia bit:

"We don't debate the pros and cons of rape or child abuse," said Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), who expressed anger that the hearing was called. "We don't bring rapists in here to explain their views" (Frank Davies, "GOP Stands Firm Against Drug Legalization," Miami Herald, June 18, 1999). When asked whether he saw any difference between advocates for legalization and advocated for pedophiles, Donnie Marshall, Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), responded that he did not see a difference.

Desperation, in my opinion, is no proper strategy for whatever mission of mercy and protection the DEA claims. Drug Warriors must do better, or else end their stupid war.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)