cannabisnews.com: A Changed Mind On Drug Legalization A Changed Mind On Drug Legalization Posted by FoM on January 11, 2001 at 16:30:12 PT By David Klinger Source: San Diego Union Tribune When I joined the Los Angeles Police Department in 1980, I was a strong supporter of the notion that illegal drugs should stay that way and that the enforcement of drug laws should be a top priority.But my views quickly changed once I hit the streets. Assigned to the rugged 77th Street Division in the heart of South-Central, I saw firsthand the social problems one could find in any community awash in the trafficking and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other controlled substances. During my first months on patrol, after handling hundreds of drug calls and arresting scores of people for possessing various illegal substances, I began to doubt what my peers and I were doing.I saw violent criminals walking the streets because the jail space they rightfully deserved was occupied by nonviolent drug offenders. When we carted small-time drug dealers off to prison, I saw other sellers quickly step in to fill the void.I started to view most people involved with drugs either as broken souls who made self-destructive choices or as harmless people who indulged their appetites in moderation -- not as crooks who needed to be punished.I tried to reconcile what I saw with my views about firmly enforcing drug laws. At first I accepted the arguments of politicians, policy wonks and my peers who asserted that ever harsher laws and firmer enforcement would turn back the tide of illegal drugs.But by the end of my tenure with the LAPD I came to believe that marijuana -- a drug I had never seen anyone overdose on or influence anyone to do anything more violent than attack a bag of potato chips -- should be legalized.I held a bifurcated stance toward illicit drugs -- legalize pot but strictly enforce existing laws against the rest of the stuff.As the years passed, however, I saw a nation fighting harder, devoting more money and jailing increasing numbers of individuals -- all the while falling further behind in the war on drugs.The price of the drugs didn't rise with increased interdiction, usage rates didn't fall, and the number of lives damaged or destroyed by chronic use, overdose and drug-related criminal activity mounted. No matter how much I disliked the idea, I became convinced the United States should legalize illicit drugs.Interestingly, both my hardiest supporters and my harshest critics come from the same group: my law-enforcement associates. Many on both sides of the debate share my views about the futility of the drug war and agree it carries a substantial downside.What generally separates those who agree with me from those who don't is their take on a question they almost invariably put to me: Won't legalizing drugs lead more people to take them and thus make things worse?I do not know whether legalizing drugs will increase their popularity. But I suspect that if we approach legalization thoughtfully and pursue a sensible post-legalization strategy, then the drug rolls will not swell. They may in fact decline.But even if more people do take drugs in the wake of legalization, we would live in a society where citizens suffer far less from the predatory crimes spawned by the illicit drug trade.In the end, we cannot protect free adults from their own poor choices, and we should not use the force of law to try. In a free society negative consequences befall people who use their freedom to do foolish things.Victimless self-destructive behavior is its own punishment, not the business of the legal system.Note: Klinger is professor of criminology at the University of Missouri. This article is adapted from his chapter in the new Cato Institute book, "After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century." A changed mind on drug legalizationSource: San Diego Union Tribune (CA) Author: David KlingerPublished: January 11, 2001Copyright: 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Address: PO Box 120191, San Diego, CA, 92112-0191 Fax: (619) 293-1440 Contact: letters uniontrib.com Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/Forum: http://www.uniontrib.com/cgi-bin/WebX Related Article & Web Site:The Cato Institutehttp://www.cato.org/ Support Grows for Sensible Drug Policies http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8279.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by Dan Hillman on January 12, 2001 at 18:23:08 PT Prohib's united front crrrracks... Nice distillation of the meaning of this cop's criticism, kapt. The drug war is an information war. One of the strongest weapons prohibitionists have is a "united front, in which all prohib's mouth the same message, no matter how distant that message from factual information. This cop breaking ranks, as you so correctly pointed out, is worth a thousand reformers arguments. The senate tried to shut down criticism of the drug war with the Meth. Proliferation Act. Let's make their day and send this cop's criticism to their offices. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on January 12, 2001 at 04:43:39 PT: There's few things more dangerous to the anti High Command than one of their former grunt troops standing up and saying the war is stupid and pointless.We can do the same and not be heard. After all, we're not on the side of the 'good guys'. We're - in the eyes of the antis - not wearing white hats. We're the 'enemy'. No matter how sensible and straightforward, no matter how logical and reasonable and level-headed, we're still a threat. Just *how* afraid the antis are of us was demonstrated last year with the reprehensible Anti-Meth Bill and its' provisions for throttling the Internet. They are absolutely terrified that a reasonable voice will advocate the dismantling of their Juggernaut...and be heard. Professor Joe McNamara is one such voice. And Professor Klinger is another.You see, it's even worse when 'one of their own' stands up and points out that not only is the Emperor naked, but butt-ugly and resembles someone suffering from a communicable disease, as well. And given the fact that this Emperor seems to suffer from murderous paroxysms that can cause anyone from elderly retired preachers to 11 year old kids to die when they come in close proximity to his minions, it's a problem that ceases to be an intellectual excerise and takes on the mantle of literal life-or-death.The antis are quite upset with Prof. Klinger, as he and others who used to be 'the king's men' are wont to point out that the 'king'... is truly mad. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by aocp on January 11, 2001 at 18:40:18 PT: i'm impressed >When we carted small-time drug dealers off to prison, I saw other sellers quickly step in to fill the void.Yup. An unfortunate side effect of massive price supports and also one point that antis just *hate* to admit as it pokes fun at the notion that they're accomplishing anything positive. :)>I do not know whether legalizing drugs will increase their popularity.Honesty will take you far. It's healthy to admit you don't know something in order to grow.>But I suspect that if we approach legalization thoughtfully and pursue a sensible post-legalization strategy, then the drug rolls will not swell. They may in fact decline.Exactomundo. All the antis talk about is doom-n-gloom realities under the repeal of prohibition. It's so evil in their minds that they cannot conceive of a reason to set up plans for its inception, much less put everything necessary into gear. It redefines closed minds. At least i try to think logically about *their* thought processes.>But even if more people do take drugs in the wake of legalization, we would live in a society where citizens suffer far less from the predatory crimes spawned by the illicit drug trade.Gee, that'd be nice. The distinction that it is the prohibition of a desired commodity, complete with no victims since all parties are consenting adults, that is responsible for inspiring the crimes it rails against. Once you've grasped that, it's all obvious from there.>In the end, we cannot protect free adults from their own poor choices, and we should not use the force of law to try.I should hope not. You're ripe for many, many unfortunate parallels to any prohibition of the 20th and 21st centuries, u.s.>In a free society negative consequences befall people who use their freedom to do foolish things.And "auuuuggggghhhhhh....nooo!" went the cry of the town busy-bodies! Get a less-intrusive hobby.>Victimless self-destructive behavior is its own punishment, not the business of the legal system.Scathing, but true. I had a relation that i felt might have been making a mistake wrt marrying her husband. I confided my doubts to my friend and asked for her advice. She said, "You cannot interfere. Instead, you must support her and be there to catch her, should she fall." I followed that advice and feel the same principle applies here. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Jay Baird on January 11, 2001 at 17:23:56 PT: the right answer "Won't legalizing drugs lead more people to take them and thus make things worse?" From which group will these people come, I wonder? Those who currently can't obtain drugs because of diminished availability? Those who don't take drugs now for fear of criminal prosecution? If they exist these people are few and far between. More likely there exists a group who would buy more drugs if the artificially high price dropped and another group who may start using. But, (drum roll, please) SO WHAT?! The alternative is spending billions to arrest, prosecute, and imprison millions! We all need to face this question head-on! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 11, 2001 at 16:56:03 PT: Read this Book! There is no one more convinced than a convert. That is why Klinger's voice, and that of Sylvester Salcedo and others are so compelling. They have seen the truth and it is ugly. It is time to create a new reality. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: