SURRENDERING THE DRUG WAR

A former police chief admits that narcotics laws are unenforceable.
Is it time we stopped trying?

From: Karen Selick To: Michael Coren Date: November 7, 2005 9:40 AM
Subject: Legalization of all drugs

Bravo to former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper, who made headlines
in October by calling for the legalization of not just marijuana, but
all drugs--cocaine, heroin, et cetera. The war on drugs has been
waged for decades without making any noticeable dent in drug
consumption. Instead, enormous damage has been done, both to the
troubled individuals who use drugs and to society as a whole. Addicts
and occasional thrill-seekers die suddenly due to adulterated drugs
or drugs of unknown potency. Many are imprisoned for what is really a
medical problem, emerging as hardened criminals. Drug dealers thrive
on the black market profits, making the world a seedy, dangerous
place for everyone else. Children are recruited as mules or lookouts.
Innocent citizens die in gun battles between rival traffickers. Cops
are corrupted. These things aren't a result of drug use. They're the
result of drug criminalization. The costs of the drug war heavily
outweigh the benefits. It's got to end.

From: Michael Coren To: Karen Selick Date: November 7, 2005 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Legalization of all drugs

Norm Stamper makes headlines. Precisely. The police darling of the
liberal establishment in the United States once again delivers a
controversial statement and is lionized by the usual suspects. As to
the issue itself, it's too important to be played with like some
ideological game. We don't know exactly what would happen if all
drugs were legalized, but we do know that in the Netherlands, for
example, permissive drug laws have led to a massive drug culture and
have not reduced drug-related crime. Opium was legal in Edwardian
Britain but still created an entire criminal underworld. There are
arguments to legalize what "might" do you harm, but not for what
"must" do you harm. The libertarian proposition is based more on an
obsession with expunging state authority than with dealing with a
complex issue with legal and moral nuances.

From: Karen Selick To: Michael Coren Date: November 7, 2005 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: Legalization of all drugs

It's pretty hard to have productive debates with you, Michael, when
you keep making up your facts. Dutch rates of drug use for marijuana,
cocaine, heroin and inhalants are all less than half of U.S. rates.
Meanwhile, the per capita murder rate in the Netherlands is only one
quarter that of the U.S. So the country with lenient drug laws has
less drug use and lower crime rates than the place with harsh drug
laws. Still love those harsh laws? Your comment on Edwardian Britain
is utterly illogical and of highly suspect veracity. There certainly
are arguments for legalizing substances that are admittedly
harmful--namely, that the harm arising from criminalization is even
greater than the harm arising from drug use. Your perpetual put-downs
of libertarianism show you have never grasped the distinction between
protecting individuals from coercion (a valid function of the state)
and protecting individuals from themselves (not valid). Drug wars
fall into the second category.

From: Michael Coren To: Karen Selick Date: November 7, 2005 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Legalization of all drugs

Karen, are you OK? I can only imagine that your rudeness is a result
of some inner pain and I'd like to help. Or perhaps it's the state
smothering you with magic rays! OK, the facts. The Dutch boast of
their liberal drug laws and the fact that so many of the population
use drugs. Dutch MPs and cabinet ministers not only admit to having
used drugs in the past, but are still using. As for murder, of course
the U.S. has a worse situation. If you seriously think this is all
about drugs, I don't really know what to say. Do you believe that
Detroit and New Orleans are anything like Rotterdam and The Hague?
Reality cries out to be heard. These are fundamentally different
countries, one with a massive underclass and profound racial
problems. As for my British example, instead of addressing the
argument you attack the arguer. Sad. Hey, have a smoke.