|
|
| Uncle Sam's Drug Problem |
|
Posted by FoM on May 03, 2002 at 07:11:41 PT By Joel Miller Source: WorldNetDaily 
It's nice when folks tell the truth. It's just a shame when you have to go to a foreign country to do it. Speaking in Jamaica on Monday, Raphael Perl, international narcoterrorism expert for the Congressional Research Service, came right out and said what drug-law reformers have been saying for years: Legalizing drugs cuts crime. The less glamorous trade-off is equally well known: More drug use. "It is very clear that there is a direct correlation between decriminalization and legalization, and levels of addiction and drug use in a society," said Perl, according to the April 30 Jamaica Daily Gleaner. For "the societies that have experimented in this area, drug use goes up ... but crime goes down." When Sen. Morris Sheppard introduced a draft of the 18th Amendment to prohibit alcohol, he labeled liquor "a narcotic poison," that "produces widespread crime." The solution, according to the prohibitionists, was simple: Ban booze. The trouble was, the prohibitionists were wrong. As it happened, an eruption of violent crime occurred after passage of the 18th Amendment and enactment of the Volstead Act. It was the time of the gangster, the mobster, the Mafiosi, retaliatory gang warfare and the original drive-by shootings. During Prohibition, "if I'm not exaggerating, there were about 10 mobs in Chicago," one illicit liquor distributor recalls in Arthur Kobler's "Ardent Spirits." "Of course you had to protect your territory. You couldn't call for help. … So when you were infringed upon, you had to retaliate immediately, or you didn't have nothing left." Prohibition made for rough times. Property crimes ratcheted up 13.2 percent, homicide 16.1 percent, while robbery soared 83.3 percent, according to economist Mark Thornton. "Fluctuations in economic activity and major government programs … no doubt played some role in these statistics," explains Thornton, "but Prohibition appears to be the significant explanatory variable for changes in the crime rate." Most telling: The crime rate began a long-term decline starting in 1933 – the same year Prohibition ended. The factors that go hand-in-hand with prohibition – barring legal tradesmen, artificially jacking-up the market, creating perverse economic incentives that lure violent men to the trade, bankrolling corruption – all contribute to crime. By repealing prohibition, those factors are eliminated. Hence, the corresponding drop in crime. Perl agrees; he's just stuck on the prospect of more drug use. "Do we want to make a trade-off in our society, where we have more drug use and less crime?" he asked. Drug use "scares me," said Perl, whose concern, according to the Gleaner, "was based on the technological advances which will make it possible to create even more addictive drugs." While more drug use will probably arise from legalization, this is somewhat of a red herring. When folks imagine legalized drugs, they typically imagine crazed dope fiends looting the cities and taking the white women. Instant Hun – just add heroin. In reality, it is prohibition that spurs on use of more dangerous drugs. It happened with the 18th Amendment; bootleggers could get more bang for their buck moving hard alcohol than beer. Likewise, opium importation fell off after passage of the first U.S. anti-drug law in 1914, replaced by greater amounts of heroin. The story is similar with marijuana and cocaine in the late '70s and cocaine and crack in the middle '80s. When the legal squeeze is on, traffickers and pushers opt to move in more potent, profitable drugs. It helps better justify their risks. When they finally corked Prohibition, beer and wine made a comeback. So, I think, will softer, less harmful drugs if legalized. In short, what scares Perl is a bogeyman. And to the extent that it isn't, for the drop in crime, it might be a good trade-off nonetheless. "I don't like legalization," said Perl. But, recognizing the validity of the option, "I think that this is a decision that each society has to make for itself." Here is where Perl's presentation is most interesting. It is OK for Jamaicans to discuss legalization, but it's a no-no here in the U.S. Crime rates have been on a decade-long drop, but crime is still a problem. Legalization would provide an answer. Unfortunately, because drug warriors have zero respect for the constitutional division of powers between states and the federal government, each society does not get a chance to make that decision for itself. Every time a state moves away from the one-size-fits-all, federal anti-drug policies, the feds clamp down. Thus, while local politicians and law enforcement are charged with protecting the citizenry from crime, the federal government robs them of a valuable tool to better carry out that charge and instead leaves them with something that exacerbates and intensifies the problem. Any way you cut the product, that's a bad deal. Source: WorldNetDaily (US Web) Related Articles & Web Site: What's New in Drug Policy Reform Forbidden Herb - Is Ganja Bad For Your Health? Anti-Ganja Laws Archaic, Says Doctor CannabisNews Articles - Prohibition Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |