Eroding Freedoms

[selenite0]

I've been slow to react to the story of the rave bust in Utah, because first reports are often wrong. But they're being confirmed. For those who haven't heard, a legal music concert on private property was busted by 90 cops, with lots of reports of excessive force. Since "raves" are known for attracting drug users, the organizer had security guards confiscating drugs from attendees. So the cops busted the guards for possession.

That illustrates why I think the "War on Drugs" is the biggest threat to our freedom. None of the complaints I've heard about the PATRIOT Act come up to the level of what happens routinely in prosecuting drug offenses. At least when counter-terrorism ops get the wrong guy they're trying to stop a real danger. The drug cops are prosecuting doctors for writing legal prescriptions and store clerks for selling legal products. Once the police start going after people for doing things in private that no one else is harmed by, there is no stopping point. Any association with a "bad" chemical becomes a crime.

Not only are the drug warriors hurting innocents on purpose, they're creating access for terrorists. Drug smuggling raises money for terrorists and having lots of well established smugglers makes it easy to sneak bombs or worse into this country. Bringing all narcotics into the above-ground economy would make it much tougher for infiltrators (they'd still have the illegal immigrant channels, but that's another rant).

Pushing back on the drug "war" is the best way I can think of to protect our freedom. It's the best way to get my vote. If anyone wants it.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nymphette_/]

AMEN!

I'd have to agree. The patriot act is peanuts to what is going on in the war on drugs. not even CLOSE...

[tmc4242.livejournal.com]

I'll second that AMEN!

Caution:

I've been against the "drug war" for years. Pretty much since I realized it was not a war against drugs, but against the American people. I think Neal Boortz summed it up the best I've ever heard. ( paraphrasing ) If the government can tell you what you can or cannot put into your own body in the privacy of your own home, then is it really YOUR body, or is it the government's ?

This was all high minded theory until a couple of years ago. I was awakened one night about 0300 by an odd flashing light coming thru our bedroom window. I grabbed ye olde front line home defense weapon and went to peek out the window. Just as I parted the blinds to look out, a guy in black BDU's, body armor, and a black kevlar helmet walked past the window carrying an M-16. Turns out law enforcement had decided my neighbors were in the drug business. The neighbors were all out in their driveway, ( mom, dad, three kids < 10 years old ) the father in handcuffs, all surrounded by armed police. Other police were searching their house.

They found NOTHING. It was all bogus. Police cars down both sides of my street from one end to the other, dozens of officers from as far away as Abilene, paramilitary guys with the token yellow "police" label -- on the back of his armor -- and it was all for nothing. They spent MY tax dollars to do that. And if they'd been one address off and not made it very clear they had a warrant, I probably wouldn't be here writing about it. I don't take armed intrusions lightly.

And on top of all that now I have to wait in line during pharmacy hours to buy a limited quantity ( after presenting ID ) to buy my allergy medicine.

This is total BS.

Legalize it and tax it. Implement QA standards so at least we don't lose anyone to amateur chemists foul ups. Endanger the public while on drugs, under the jail for you. Otherwise, whatever floats your boat.

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

I agreed with that ever since I read a book on gang wars during prohibition back in high school and noticed that all the headlines from the '30s were just like the headlines I was reading in the '80s. Only the name of the drug had changed. The war on (some) drugs is and has been the single greatest threat to liberty since the early 1900s.

Unfortunately, it also has popular support. Never mind trading liberty for security, most people are more than happy to trade liberty to make sure their neighbors don't get high.

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

That's a very perceptive point about the headlines, I had never heard that before.

[wolfrick.livejournal.com]

I think the best first step we could take would be to move to limit the ability of police organizations to _directly_ benefit from property siezure and forfeiture.
A big part of the problem is the proliferation of paramilitary police organizations that are growing fat on the proceeds of this "drug war" from siezing property.
If we stop that, then maybe we can turn the tide.

Amen!

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

Preach it, brother!

Re: Amen!

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

I'd have a hard time agreeing more. We spend a tremendous amount of time and resources on this, for precious little benefit. If it worked that would be one thing, but it sure seems like it's causing more trouble than it's worth...

Re: Amen!

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

The one argument in favor of keeping recreational drugs illegal (as opposed to merely restricted or regulated ala Zocor) is that it keeps drug use in addition to alcohol marginalized.

Alcohol use, which admittedly has huge social and economic costs; costs which were actually deeply defrayed during Prohibition, is too much a part of the fabric of our society (of human society, even) to ever be successfuly eradicated.

It is this argument which needs to be answered in order to convince the sober thinkers that that the "War on Drugs" needs to be ended ASAP. The hippy-dippy libertines will never achieve it: They merely strengthen the hand of those with a vested interest in its extension.

Re: Amen!

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I'll be working on a full answer to that as time permits. A couple of comments right now:

1. Social stigma seems to be an effective and less costly way of reducing alcohol and tobacco use.
2. For all the work put into prohibiting drug distribution just about everything is still accessible everywhere, so only the most casual of users are being deterred from consuming them.

Re: Amen!

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

well,

We can learn about (1) from the results of the 30-year public pressure campaign against tobacco: has this actually reduced smoking incidence, or has it just made it a lot more inconvenient for smokers?

And the one thing which the enforcement has done is make it more difficult to be a producer, not a consumer...

Re: Amen!

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

1. Agreed, but the impetus for social stigma seems to come with a price tag that includes, for example, single mothers and "sex postive" life-styles; which may prove too expensive, therefore, to implement.

2. Also true, but (to play devil's advocate here) deterring the casual user and the law-abiding prevents recreational drug use from become an accepted (and therefore ineradicable) norm ala alcohol.

Re: Amen!

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I understood (1). Are you saying that the pressure to change the law (to be more permissive about drug use) is coming from folks who have no problem with single mothers and "sex positive" lifestyles?

Certainly this isn't my case: I'm a pretty traditional guy with regard to myself (happily married, house+dog), but I have yet to see a compelling reason why individual liberty should be curtailed in the case of drug use...

2. Valid point. However, to devil the devil ;) hasn't this resulted in criminal behaviour becoming more normalized?

Re: Amen!

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

1. Er, yes in appearance. But I was talking about the case for the return of social stigma as a better recourse than invasive and draconian laws.

2. Yes, it has: A strong point in the case that the cost of the drug "war" are greater than the costs of legalization.

Re: Amen!

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

agreed and agreed. On point (1), I think right now it's actually socially cooler to admit to smoking marijuana than tobacco...

Re: Amen!

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

Interesting point - I'm curious though: which argument do you think the status-quo folks are making? Personally, I see it as sort of left-over Puritian-style busybodiness...

Re: Amen!

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

1. Smoking: Visit Europe for a taste of pre-Smoking is Teh Evol America. The combination of social stigma + draconian laws has reduced it dramatically. If I were more selfish and less idealistic, (since I truly, deeply loathe public smokers) I'd be glad. The maniforld costs, however, were too high.

2. Re Puritan-style busibodies: Yes, but that perception is inaccurate in 80% of the cases and shall, if expressed, strengthen the opposing side. Nothing like a bit of ignorant slander to really stiffen people's spines.

Re: Amen!

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

eek! I didn't mean to imply that the people who are for the war are themselves Puritians, and certainly intend no slander.

So then, if their roots are not in based in a Utopian ideal society (this is what I was getting at with the Puritian line), what are they? The arguments I've heard have ranged from public health (then why don't we treat drugs like any other public health issue?) to "it's bad for people, they shouldn't do it" (I'll decide that for myself, thanks though), to "X is a gateway drug to Y" (why would this be a relevant argument? The argument that criminal behavior leads to more criminal behavior is much stronger than the drug connection...) although most of the rationales are not often very clearly expressed.

So what's the position of that 80% of non-Puritians (I understant the Puritian folks, I just disagree)?

One thing to note - you said

since I truly, deeply loathe public smokers

Is that really what you meant, or perhaps did you really mean "I deeply loathe smoking in public places because it {annoys me | bothers my lungs | makes my clothes stink | whatever}"? Do really despise the smokers themselves for engaging in a legal activitiy in places where it is legal?

Re: Amen!

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

To take your points in reverse order, I'm afraid that, yes, when smokers smoke in public I find them loathesome. That it's legal, I accept. It's also appallingly rude. The idea that we can substitute legal restrictions for a civil society, however, is even more loathesome and foolhardy to boot.

Most of the people I know who support "the War on Drugs" to some extent (and who have no vested interests viz political power, money, etc.) do so as a result of personal experience with a close friend or family member who has chosen recreational drug use as a permanent life-style. The destructiveness, especially for their secondary victims (family members, children) is so appalling that the possibility that this choice could be more widespread (as is alcohol abuse) causes them to side with the status quo.

It's possible that some of these people are driven by Puritan utopianisms or a sheer kill-joy busy-body urge, but I doubt it. Where it's not the case, implying such (esp. in the face of familial tragedy) is likely to create the not unreasonable conviction that the insultor is an ignoramous who may be ignored!

Not a result I want, at all, since my own family's brush with drug-abuse has not changed my opinion that the War on (some) Drugs does more harm than good.

Re: Amen!

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

I've known lots of people who have had seriously bad experiences with drugs - like "wrecked their lives" bad. What that makes me think is "hmm, it'd be better if fewer people used drugs" - so I can understand the first urge to just ban them outright and lock up anyone who has a tangential connection.

However, it doesn't work.

The illegality of drugs doesn't actually prevent people from wrecking their lives, and in addition to making them addicts or junkies or whatever, the WoD makes them criminals on top of it. So instead of society's pity and assistance (i.e. what a wino gets), they get the blunt nightstick - which is hardly helpful in their struggle to recover.

Regarding smoking, I'm kind of stunned. If I go to a bar where smoking is permitted, and someone is smoking, how is he being rude? It's doing something stinky in a place where it's okay to be stinky.

Re: Amen!

[celticdragonfly.livejournal.com]

I loathe them. Not only are they making the public place stinky, they're LITTERERS. Everywhere I go that smoking is allowed I see smokers throwing still-lit-and-smoking cigarette butts on the ground. It's disgusting and unhygienic, and I loathe the kind of people that are making public areas that disgusting.

I know two smokers who are courteous about their smoke and do not drop butts all over. I do NOT include them in this loathing.

Re: Amen!

[thegameiam.livejournal.com]

I never littered cigarette butts during the 4 years I smoked (3 packs/day). I always considered it to be just like any other form of nasty littering.

I still think that it would be better to "hate the sin but love the sinner..."