the War in California

[Tiassa]

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

From the Week Online #155, from the Drug Reform Coordination Network:

San Francisco, CA: A new Justice Policy Institute study reveals that California leads the nation in drug offender imprisonment. The study also reveals that California counties that most vigorously pursued harsh enforcement strategies did not experience greater declines in drug use or crime.

No matter how many times we say it--and "we" being those of us who think the War Against Drugs is wrong, immoral, inhumane, tyrannical, or simply a waste of money--why don't the Drug Warriors believe it when we say that treating Drugs as a criminal issue simply doesn't work.

In 1980, only 379 Californians were sent to prison for drug possession offenses compared to 12,749 in 1999, a population-adjusted rate increase of 2,244%, a more than 20-fold increase.

We knew this a while ago. Drug use was declining at the end of the 1970's, when Reagan took office. It is important to know that the contemporary analytical perspective is that Reagan's version of the War on Drugs actually increased use. Those of us who observed the cocaine-fed money-frenzy during the Decade of Greed need no statistics to see this, but data at the Schaeffer Library ( www.druglibrary.org ) or Common-Sense Drug Policy ( www.csdp.org ), as well as the Sentencing Project (I need to check on that one later) show that drug arrests increased through the 1980's while drug use may well have been continuing its decline.
http://www.cjcj.org/cadrug/cadrug.html

From the study in question:

During the past two decades California experienced a 25-fold increase in the number of drug offenders sentenced to state prison. As a result of this increase California led the nation in drug offender incarceration with a rate of 115 per 100,000 of the population - 2.5 times the national average (45 per 100,000 population for 36 reporting states) in 1996 Table 1). By 1999, California's drug imprisonment rate rose to 132 per 100,000.

The study asserts that part of this cause is California's harsh attitude toward sentencing:

California's uniquely harsher approach to drug crime is founded on deterrence and incapacitation theory. Deterrence and incapacitation theory promotes increased arrests, prosecutions, and prison sentences as the primary means to dissuade drug use and reduce street crime by removing the drug-involved offender from the community. The theory also holds that stricter sanctions targeting low level and first time drug offenders further reduces drug-related crime by increasing the personal costs of drug use among incipient users (Maxwell 1999; Tonry 1999; Henham 1999). The theory subscribes to the belief that failure to strictly enforce drug laws promotes other forms of crime as undeterred drug users seek money to supply their drug needs (Lurigo & Swartz, 1999).

I might note that this is the idea which fostered the Crack Wars of the late 80's and early 90's.

Two citations, the first is from DRCNet, the second from the study itself; I have accented the citations:

Counties that concentrated their enforcement efforts on felony manufacture or sale rather than on simple possession drug offenses were significantly more likely to experience violent crime declines and larger reductions in property crime rates. (DRCNet, WOL, 155.6)

and ...

As the nation's leader in drug law enforcement, California presents an unusual opportunity to examine the impact of arrest and incarceration drug control policies. As California drug arrests doubled from 131,000 in 1980 to 265,000 in 1998, major variations developed. In the 1980s, two-thirds of the state's drug arrest increases were high level felonies such as illegal drug manufacture, sale, or possession in large quantity. However, in the 1990s, nearly all drug arrest increases were for low level possession offenses.

Goshy, I'm having trouble finding commentary. The study just keeps pouring out the data and assertions:

In summary, the imprisonment increases for California drug law violators during the past two decades are the result of harsher sentencing of lower level drug users. This pattern suggests that incarceration has become the primary intervention tool for state drug prevention policy.

and then ....

Although, overall, crime in California is down in the past eight years, data show that stricter drug enforcement is not associated with declines in crime rates or drug use

As far as Cali is concerned, it's their own tax money to waste. Some of it, I'm sure, is federal. But yet another nail in the Drug War. If not legalization, then what?

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

[666]

Tiassa,

When it comes to the drug wars I have to disagree with both sides. The guys fighting the drug war are going after the wrong thing, they are fighting the symptom, but not the cause. Thosee against the drug war go in the other extrem, "legalize it". Your last statment being an example.

As far as Cali is concerned, it's their own tax money to waste. Some of it, I'm sure, is federal. But yet another nail in the Drug War. If not legalization, then what?

I may be reading this wrong, but it appears that you see no other alternitive then legalization. There are many other paths!

Those in favor of legalization see it as a harmless vice, but fail to fully understand the same stats that they quote as fuel against the drug wars. They clearly show how much violent crime comes with the drugs.

The only exception I can with legalization is pot. Same effects as booze, as far as I am concerned. It should be regulated just like booze with only one other limitation. Consumption should be regulated to a "hash house". So that way those who chose not to inhale it don't have to.

The athoritys should be going after the dealers the hardest, and public programs should be in place to help reduce new users and help get those who are on it off. Most will say that these programs are all ready in place, but from a first hand experience, they SUCK! Not that I had to go to one, but my father was in and out through out his life, at least twice a year.

Thier failur hardly rest on thier shoulders. They get very little funding which causes a whole slew of problems. If you don't have the money pay your staff enough to live on you don't have many staff mebers. They don't have a standard treatment program. No the 12 step program is not a standard. So many places have thier own version of it that it is'nt funny.

Even at that the 12 step program is only just a good fondation, not an entire "cure". Don't ask for what is, becuase if I had the time, money, cooperation of the goverment and health officals I would have started my own clinic.!

 

[Oxygen]

I would like to point out that most of the people who were ready with the cross and nails to crucify Joe Camel because he supposedly targeted kids see no problem with teenage pot smoking.

Just an observation and my own two cents, adjusted for inflation.

 

[Tiassa]

Sixes--

Forgive me if I seem moody. I can't fathom the Mariners' performance tonight. Otherwise, I'm in generally good spirits and not at all as grumpy about things as I hope not to sound, as such.

But you've brought up some important ideas. If I might ...

I may be reading this wrong, but it appears that you see no other alternitive then legalization. There are many other paths!

I do not believe there are other paths at this time. I also hope to show many people in the world, over time, why. In the case of marijuana, I am happy to see your equation with alcohol. In fact, but just for the record, marijuana is actually safer, in general, for both the user and the public that might encounter the user.

Those in favor of legalization see it as a harmless vice, but fail to fully understand the same stats that they quote as fuel against the drug wars. They clearly show how much violent crime comes with the drugs.

I live in a culture in which certain people whose perspective might otherwise seem somewhat realistic to my perspective expressed that Trainspotting, in its cinematic form, glorified drug use--that is, made it appear as a good idea. Seattle's not the most Puritan place in the world, but I expect better from these particular associates of mine.

But, as one who advocates legalization, please understand that I disagree with your assessment of the statistics of the Drug War. Where statistics reflect violent crime in the modern Drug War, they are a direct result of the presence of a Black Market. To wit: alcohol Prohibition was not repealed out of nationwide thirst for booze; rather, the violence, dependency, and other nasty stuff which Prohibition sought to reduce exploded. Drug-related crime? Most of it goes away when drug prohibition does.

Part of what makes heroin so difficult for the addict to manage is the idea of street quality. Street quality is inconsistent. Profiteering dealers cut heroin thin, so the addict needs more, and is too desperate to notice. In Portland, Oregon though, in '93 or '94, a rash of heroin-related deaths was explained as a probable case of an inexperienced dealer; the addicts were shooting straight, pure heroin, something they hadn't had in years, and overdosing in seconds. Legalization offers the addict both quality assurance as well as rehabilitation opportunities that the population will inherently regard with less scorn.

The athoritys should be going after the dealers the hardest, and public programs should be in place to help reduce new users and help get those who are on it off. Most will say that these programs are all ready in place, but from a first hand experience, they SUCK! Not that I had to go to one, but my father was in and out through out his life, at least twice a year.

I agree that, inasmuch as we must have a Drug War, we should be targeting dealers. Understand what that means, though ... a "Dealer" getting dope for his friends will move a thousand dollars a week, at least. Depending on the season, my own associates can do three times that without leaving the confines of trusted friends. I actually resent the notion of unscrupulous dealers. My own history with controlled substances has been relatively benevolent. I've met stupid people in the business, but it's quite easy to keep yourself removed from the "unscrupulous" dealers. I so rarely encounter them that I often forget they exist. But when we talk about going after dealers, we must wonder why guys moving hundreds of pounds can role on mules who deal eighth and quarter bags for them and get less jail time.

Of rehabilitation centers, I point out the phrase inherently less scorn, introduced above. Presently, Americans regard drug addicts with a criminal assumption. This is because drugs are controlled--or, more accurately, proliferated by--an effort to criminalize them and punish the people who use them. When we begin, en masse, perceiving our duty not only to liberate and empower but also to educate, we will see the opportunity to control heroin, for instance, by merely being able to express to our kids what it does. Right now the Drug War is a mess because the Prohibitionists lie. There is no middle ground on that: the Drug Warriors are lying to you, period. Our Drug Czar was booed last year in Europe, not for his dumb policies, but for inventing statistics and thereby slandering the European subjects thereof, in order to bolster his own paranoid causes.

When the Drug Warriors drop the slander campaign, people will view our human relationship with drugs and drug addicts differently. As the demonization blanches out of the culture, the quality of rehabilitation efforts will improve as the need for their services decreases. (I will not be held responsible for deviations from that projection inspired by capitalist plots to extend profiteering through drug rehabilitation services. That is not as extremely paranoid as it sounds. The Fed is investigating drug testing labs right now for fraud.)

I am willing to propose the idea of legalization for adult consumption, complete with sin-tax and Surgeon-General's Warning, marijuana, psilocybin, mescaline/peyote, LSD, MDMA, cocaine, opium resin, and heroin. I am also willing to waive sin-tax in favor of private growth of marijuana and opium poppies, as well as Stropharius and Psilocybe mushrooms, as well as the cultivation of C. purpurea (hallucinogen). Sorry, but there's environmental concerns to processing meth, Ecstasy, crank, heroin, cocaine, ad nauseam. But why not coca, as well?

You have tax money to pour into all of society, starting with education and, of course, rehabilitation. You have law enforcement resources untied. You have a bunch of DEA pansies out of work, and a lot less people taking up the prison space not being occupied by rapists, murderers, and the like. Furthermore, you've busted the dealers' businesses by empowering anyone allowed to buy booze to grow their own pot. Furthermore, if Joe Doe gets to grow his smoke, you're preventing companies like RJR and Phillip Morris from selling inferior, possibly dangerous marijuana to the public under the guise of regulated industry. Synthetic drugs would be available under regulated conditions, but the lot of 'em would be of a quality standard that would make addiction-management somewhat easier.

The industrial applications of hemp, an unnecessary causalty of the Drug War, is immense.

Remember that pot is illegal because of a commerce issue. That's the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot