More Drug Warring

  More Drug Warring

Posted by FoM on March 02, 2001 at 10:16:10 PT
By Kathryn Jean Lopez, NR Associate Editor 
Source: National Review 

In the past few weeks, NRO has had some give-and-take on the drug wars. Jonah Goldberg broke ranks with NR's editors in "The Right Dope." Then, syndicated columnist and Reason senior editor (and former NR staffer) Jacob Sullum took Goldberg on in "High Anxiety." In NRO's latest symposium, experts Jack Dunphy, an LA cop, and Sally Satel, a clinical psychiatrist who has dealt extensively with drug addicts have their say, along with freelance writer Noah Pollak. 
Jack Dunphy, an officer of the LAPD and NRO columnist:Dunphy is one of the more amiable cops. No matter the affront to the commonweal that brings a person to my attention, I try to make pleasant his first steps into the vortex of the justice system. Over the better part of two decades in the business I have hauled perhaps three or four hundred drug users before the bar of justice, and in so hauling I have conducted a poll among them. Though my methods are well short of anything that could be called scientific, the results are nonetheless startling in their uniformity. "Do you think we should legalize drugs?" I ask them. And of all those three or four hundred people, only one of them — a young man who did not strike me as being given to serious introspection — responded in the affirmative. The rest of them, men and women of all races and backgrounds, were opposed to the idea of legalization. When I asked them why, the most common answer was something along the lines of, "Drugs have ruined my life. I wish I had never started up with them." I find it curious that the national ethos appears to be shifting. In his speech at the 1996 Republican Convention, Colin Powell said that when grew up he was taught that using drugs was not only wrong but shameful. People are finding it less and less so today. Only cigarette smokers should be ashamed, it seems, though I have yet to encounter a smoker whose soul has been diminished and enslaved by tobacco. I remember one man to whom I put the question. I had arrested him for possession of heroin, but his previous criminal record was nothing less than opulent. "If they legalize that [stuff]," he said, "pretty soon everybody will be like me." Sally Satel, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, practicing psychiatrist, and author of PC, M.D. The drug-legalization debate will always be with us. Surely, I agree with much of what Jacob Sullum has to say about the libertarian regime. On paper it looks good but for his vision to succeed, our society will have to stop picking up after people who cannot control their drug use. That is, no public housing for addicts, no welfare benefits, no publicly financed treatment. Until we are prepared to allow people with the "disease" of addiction to experience the consequences of their actions, a liberalized reform won't work. legalization front, however, seems to be manned not so much by people like Sullum but by vocal groups — like the Drug Policy Foundation and Soros's Lindesmith Center — who are infatuated with the European model, like the Netherlands, wherein addicts are given greater access to hard drugs and then effectively become wards of the state when they hit the wall. The motto: The addict has a right to use drugs, society has the responsibility to care for him when he abuses that right. The worst of both worlds. This scenario makes the libertarian thought experiment downright appealing. Goldberg weighs in with a well-reasoned reckoning culminating in bid for a medical cure for addiction. As a former addiction-researcher, however, I think that Goldberg's faith in the development of anti-addiction drugs, while touching, is too fervent. True, the National Institute on Drug Abuse is pouring millions into the development of such agents. A few years ago, the director of NIDA talked about developing a cocaine vaccine by the year 2000; it was supposed to be a veritable magic bullet. We're still waiting. To be fair, it is possible that such a discovery is just beyond the horizon and compared to some of the truly outlandish government expenditures, the NIDA medications development project falls safely within the bounds of responsible research. Still, Goldberg should not hold his breath. After all, for almost half a century methadone has been used for heroin addiction. While it works well to reduce or abolish drug craving and withdrawal symptoms and help addicts reduce their drug use, a large fraction continue to use some drugs and remain minimally productive citizens. Thus, while methadone is definitely a valuable treatment, the person underneath the habit typically needs more than medication to help her become a fully responsible parent, spouse, employee, and citizen. That's where solid rehabilitation programs, like the 12- to 18-months long residential Phoenix House placements, enter the picture. None of this is to deny that the status quo has its problems. And there are a number of rational reforms we can undertake within the current system to ameliorate the realities and perceptions of unfairness. First, strengthen the diversion-to-treatment system within the criminal justice system. One promising model is the "drug court" wherein a nonviolent addict offender is given the choice of treatment or trial. If he chooses the former and completes the mandated and highly supervised treatment program, charges are expunged from his record. For this to work properly we must continue to distinguish criminal addicts from addicted criminals. The former is some poor guy who but for a habit would not be committing a petty crime for cash to buy his next hit. But for the latter — the big-time dealer who snorts some of his own product or car-jacker who just happened to be high at the time — don't think twice about locking him up. Second, for cocaine crimes end the crack-powder disparity. Third, consider repealing mandatory-minimum sentences. Lastly, we need to realize that the "disease" model of addiction is dangerously incomplete. To compare addiction to other chronic conditions like asthma, high blood pressure, and diabetes is among the most facile of all concepts health professionals have had to offer. The other is that addiction is a "chronic and relapsing brain disease." The implications of this rhetoric, well-intentioned though it is, is that the addict is a victim of his biology and the drug's pharmacology. I work with addicts and they are nobody's victim. I am in favor of treatment, of course, both detox — which takes a matter of days to a few weeks — and long-term rehabilitation. But to distract ourselves from the fact that these men and women are in a position to control their lives is woefully niave. I see how they make decisions on hourly basis that helps cement their sobriety or invites them to relapse. A few common-sense revisions would soften some of the rancor generated by the "drug war" by improving the prospects of addicts caught up in the criminal justice system. In the process they would relieve us from having to contemplate Sullum's theoretical social model or waiting, as Goldberg is prepared to do, for medical science to rescue us. Noah Pollak, freelance writer:In his sprawling commentary, Jonah Goldberg says that "the truth is, I don't think either [the legalizers or the prohibitionists are] right because drug addiction is not a soluble problem through social policy in a free society, though it is a problem." This is probably the wisest statement in Mr. Goldberg's article, yet contradicts many of his other comments. Since the inception of the war on drugs in 1914, prohibition proponents have been discussing drug use as if it is smallpox or whooping cough, an outbreak to be defeated. But no array of laws has ever decisively, or even moderately, deterred drug use, because what drives drug use is the natural human lust for intoxication. That lust will never be stamped out or suppressed, no matter how severe the mandatory minimums or how many helicopters are shipped to Colombia; the government might as well be prohibiting illicit orgasms. The best course of action is legalization, without hopes for utopia. We should accept the fact that there will always be some junkies in America. Drugs will not go away, whether they are legal or illegal; some people will make bad choices, hurt themselves, and cause pain among their family and friends, and that might happen more often if drugs are legal. However, that misfortune must be weighed against the untold millions in the past few decades who have had their lives ruined by prison sentences and their futures curtailed by criminal records — people whose drug use cannot be classified as the type of behavior that should concern the government, or anyone, in many cases. William F. Buckley, a forceful proponent of terminating the war on drugs, once remarked to a skeptic that "conservatism is the politics of reality." Instead of fighting drugs with the goal of completely eradicating them from society, we would be better served if the government concerned itself with the more humble task of protecting rights, which involves arresting people who hurt other people, rather than the better-living-through-jail strategy of the drug war. Legalize drugs and adopt policies that reflect a tough love for people with drug problems, such as forced rehab for those who commit crimes while high, treatment on request, and the encouragement of private discrimination in housing and employment to ensure that no one need tolerate junkies. Note: The debate continues. Source: National Review (US) Author: Kathryn Jean Lopez, NR Associate EditorPublished: March 2, 2001 Address: 215 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Copyright: 2001 National Review Contact: letters Website: Forum: Anxiety: Right Dope:

Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #23 posted by Lehder on March 04, 2001 at 11:43:23 PT
Our Barbaric Drug War
> I had arrested him for possession of heroin, but his previous criminal record was nothing less than opulent. "If they legalize that [stuff]," he said, "pretty soon everybody will be like me."This is pathetic. Drugs were legal from time immemorial and "everybody" was not "like" this whiner with the ‘opulent criminal record'. I'm not, you're not and no law can make us that way. Sensible people walk past glittering shelves of beautifully bottled booze because they have no desire to become roaring drunkards, and they are not like this sick puppy either. This cop's absurd statement flies in the face of common sense and all fact; it's an insult to anyone not born with a corkscrew in his mouth and a dirty needle in his arm... or a burr in his arse.So why is it here? Why are so many willing to accept this affront? What does it say about Our Drug War and our society in general?The cop's victim was manufactured by the drug war. And he is its most rare and perfect product, a vocal justification and validation, in the minds of drug warriors, for the entire primitive and ritualistic pogrom. He is their finished, manufactured exemplar created to testify to the false "truth" of the drug warrior's propaganda. Like the medieval witch confessing under mercilessly repeated tortures, like the heretic who repents on the Inquisitor's rack, this scapegoat of the drug war tells his oppressors what they desperately need to hear. He provides the only source of "factual" support for the drug warrior's propaganda: that drugs destroy lives and that only the drug warrior's prisons can prevent you from destroying your own life with drugs. The warrior's victim is offered to us not as one who has in deed been destroyed by titular design, but as what we ourselves by nature are - but for the Grace of our Police and Our DrugWar. The drug warrior needs, at the price of his victim's soul, this validation of his self-worth and the nobility and altruism of his hateful war over and over like a junkie needs a fix. There is no end to the victims he needs - numbers approaching two million each year are not enough. No measure is too extreme or bizarre to identify and arrest more victims - forced urination under scrutiny and infrared peeping through your walls seem normal and necessary to the drug warrior, essential to the preservation of our society. Be sensible, do you really believe for a moment that the world will cave in if you don't learn to piss under observation?As a race we have repeated the mistakes of scapegoating and bigotry throughout history, always at the cost of mass destructions of ordinary people and always along with our best people too. The drug war is an old evil with a new jargon and it is conducted only half consciously while driven by a deeper, barbarous group instinct to condemn. Drug warriors condemn individuals to magically bear the problems of the world which they instinctively, primitively, believe can be resolved by the destruction of their scapegoats. This instinct has lain dormant only for brief interludes in our history as a race; you can read of many more examples of the human destructions by bigotry and scapegoating in Szasz' The Manufacture of Madness. Like people who come to this board looking for the solution to ending the drug war, I raced to the conclusion of this book eager to find the answer and the happy ending, the insight of how to make our citizens recognize the drug war as a holy, sick self-mutilation. I want it over with today and for all time. But there was no answer, only a restatement of our dilemma:			The tendency (perhaps one ought to call it a "reflex")to sacrifice a scapegoat in order to save the group from disintegration and, hence, the self from dissolution, is clearly basic to man's social nature. It follows that man's refusal to sacrifice scapegoats - and his willingness to recognize and bear his own and his group's situation and responsibility in the world - would be a major step in his moral development, comparable, perhaps, to his rejection of cannibalism. I believe, indeed, that in the rejection, or transcending, of the scapegoat principle lies the greatest moral challenge for modern man. On its resolution may hinge the fate of our species.People, we gotta get violent ignoramuses out of power for the sake of ourselves and our civilization. We need conscious leaders who are able to see further than the polls, who know something of our past and can envision a future.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by NiftySplifty on March 04, 2001 at 01:23:02 PT
You guys rule...
I always appreciate your heart-felt comments. This is definitely a place where one can learn, not merely by straight facts, but also by listening to others' experiences; others whom we most likely would never have the chance to meet, let alone commune.Thanks.N...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by Dan B on March 03, 2001 at 23:38:18 PT:
Thanks, FoM
You have never struck me as one of those people who believe they have reached "the pinnacle of understanding." I wouldn't think you'd be running a site like this if you didn't have an inclination to learn and grow like the rest of us.I appreciate the care you have put into this site, as well as your responses to articles and our comments.Peace,Dan B
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by FoM on March 03, 2001 at 22:12:36 PT
Just One More Thing
Even though I am older I still am learning about life everyday too. It never stops. There is no arrival age! It doesn't exist.Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by FoM on March 03, 2001 at 22:04:32 PT
Thanks Dan
I'm about done for the day but Dan you have a lot going for you. Curiosity and passion are very important characteristics to have. I admire those traits in a person.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Dan B on March 03, 2001 at 21:50:05 PT:
I Wholeheartedly Agree
I think it is important to be able to express our opinions on these topics in a fair-minded, rational way. I agree with dddd that the differences between the abortion debate and the drug war debate are largely moral/ethical in nature and have little to do with the fact that both issues are represented by those who would have government impose a limited group's moral/ethical standards on others. With regard to my youthful expression of powerful feelings, I think it depends on the issue. I have powerful feelings when it comes to exploitation of all kinds, and I think the world would be a better place if more people had the guts to express how they feel about such exploitation. I am still learning about myself and the world I live in, and I plan to continue learning until I am dead. When we begin to believe we have reached the pinnacle of understanding, then we begin to feel comfortable imposing that "understanding" on others. And that's how wars of all kinds get started.Certainly, I have to agree that experience plays a huge role in one's understanding of issues and acceptance of others despite their beliefs, however different those beliefs may be from our own. I know this is ironic, but there is one thing I hope I never begin to accept: intolerance. Intolerance is the child of ignorance, and ignorance is not without remedy. The remedy is education. I am not referring to some sheepskin one can obtain through the state (believe me, just about anyone with enough drive can get one of those); I'm referring instead to taking the time to read, listen and learn about issues of import and opening one's mind enough to consider alternatives to "the way it's always been done."Yeah, I can get pretty emotional about many topics, the drug war being the biggest. People should have the legal right to make their own decisions, regardless of whether I or anyone else thinks they are right or wrong. And getting an abortion is perhaps the most difficult choice many women will ever have to face, before and after the decision has been made. The government must recuse itself from that decision, just as it must recuse itself from people's decisions to use or not use drugs. Any drugs.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by FoM on March 03, 2001 at 21:00:31 PT
Hi dddd
I really like the way different views can be discussed and reason found in all of them. Dan reminds me of how I felt years ago. I had powerful feelings about almost every topic. All the time I was really looking for answers for myself. I know now that time is what does it all. Just time. As we get older we see how we can say in many cases "there but by the grace of God go I." I hope this makes sense.Thanks! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by dddd on March 03, 2001 at 20:47:14 PT
Your eloquent and well stated commentary was outstanding,as usual.I agree with your insights on the difference between drugs/abortion,,,,but,,,,I only agree in the way that it would apply in an ethical/"moral" realm...When it comes to the government,and the question of intrusive laws regardinga persons own body,,,I am of the opinion that the government should have no rolein whether a woman gets an abortion,or whether I should be allowed to get stoned,self medicate,,etc.We could go into great depths in this discussion.,,perhaps beyondthe scope of this forum...I just read your update,and I must agree with all you said.I like how you have developed such a polite and balanced approach.....I was getting ready to writea major rambling response,but you are right,it would be a long sidetrack to geton here.....I knew it would be a provocative comparison.....I really appreciated yourcomments..............................peace...dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by FoM on March 03, 2001 at 20:13:52 PT
One more thing
You know it boils down to the our rights over our own life. The right to be wrong. The right to be right too. That's what freedom really means to me.PS: Thank you too!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Dan B on March 03, 2001 at 20:02:04 PT:
FoM, sounds like we're on the same page
I, too, disagree with the practice of abortion, but I also disagree with making it illegal because doing so causes more harm than good. I appreciate your comments as I was initially a bit apprehensive when I posted my remarks. Additionally, I think society should have compassion for women who do choose/have chosen to have abortions. You are correct to assert that guilt is often a very serious by-product of that decision, and I feel that it is wrong to exacerbate that guilt by screaming epithets at these women.Having said all that, I think it is useful to explore these issues from time to time, but I'd hate to cause dissention here by doing so often. Many of us gather here because of our common interest in ending the war on cannabis (not to mention the larger war on some drugs), and I'd rather not damage the cohesion we seem to have here by introducing potentially divisive side-issues into the debate.FoM, thanks again, by the way, for providing this resource whereby we can all share our opinions. I am always amazed by your consistent and timely updates; sometimes I feel like I can barely keep up!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on March 03, 2001 at 19:29:57 PT

A comment Dan
Dan very interesting. You made me really think. This is how I feel about the abortion issue. I am against abortion. That is my inner feelings and it wouldn't have been a consideration for me under any circumstances. That a side I also believe that each woman when she faces the possible need to get an abortion is tormented by it. It isn't something that would be taken lightly. Every action will get a reaction. We go through life and we make good decisions and bad ones and we live with what it does to our life and we learn and go on and get wiser as we go. So I believe that a woman should be allowed the right to decide her own destiny. She will deal with guilt for many years or maybe the rest of her life. Woman are that way I know. Years ago woman would drink Pennyroyal Tea and would abort. It has been going on since the beginning of time but to take that right from a woman would be very wrong no matter how we personally feel. The same thing goes with drugs but I just wanted to comment on abortion for a change.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Dan B on March 03, 2001 at 18:56:16 PT:

Abortion Issue = Drug Issue: Shaky Ground
dddd,I think you get into shaky ground when you try to equate the abortion issue with the drug issue. Here's why:With abortion, one can argue that the fetus is a living being with certain rights and that those rights are not only jeopardized, but not even considered when a woman decides to abort the fetus. Please understand that this is the argument put forward by those who oppose abortion rights and is not necessarily my own position. I am relating the argument because I think it contrasts sharply with the drug issue.Because the abortion issue at least ostensibly involves more people (the fetus) than just the person making the decision, it is different and should be more controversial than the drug issue, not less. For drugs, the only person physically harmed is the user (if that); thus, the arguments in favor of legalization have a stronger foundation than arguments in favor of abortion rights. Those who believe life begins at conceptions correctly deduce that terminating a pregnancy is akin to murder. When I say "correctly," I mean the argument that abortion is murder is consistent with the belief that life begins at conception. It goes like this:Claim 1: Murder is the termination of a human life without the consent of the deceased.Claim 2: Human life begins at conception.Claim 3: A human fetus cannot consciously give consent for termination of its life.Conclusion: Therefore, termination of a human fetus's life is murder.You may not agree with those claims, but whether you agree does not make them wrong or right. The claims are based on largely universal beliefs based on systems of thought that have existed for many millenia. And the conclusion is logically correct based on those claims. Those who favor abortion rights have other, equally valid claims (e.g. abortions will continue whether legal or not, and women should not be sacrificed to unsafe medical procedures when safer ones could be available).The argument against legalizing drugs contains no such logic. In fact the claims asserted can be (and have been) proven false. Drug use requires consent. The only drug use that should be considered illegal is that which is visited upon a person without that person's consent. I am thinking here of date rape drugs where the person with the drug in her system has been drugged without her consent. Here are some claims the prohibitionists try to use to create the false impression that drug use harms those who have not consented to the drug use:Claim 1: Drug use causes harm to society through losses in productivity in the workplace.Claim 2: Drug use causes harm to families of drug users because they suffer when their loved ones abuse themselves.Claim 3: Drug use causes harm to society because addiction treatment and medical problems brought on by drug use place an unfair burden on taxpayers.Claim 4: Making drugs illegal will reduce all of the above problems associated with drug use.Of course, those of us who have chosen to educate ourselves understand that the first three claims are arguably false and that the last claim is absolutely false. Evidence from the past thirty years from around the world has shown that making drugs illegal exacerbates the problems associated with drug use. This is undeniable to any rational thinking person. It is also the only place where the abortion issue and the drug issue do, in fact, parallel one another: making abortion illegal does not make it more rare and, in fact, creates more problems than it solves.Here's another example: in order for the informal "survey" conducted by the LAPD officer quoted above to be true, the following claims must be true:Claim 1: All drug users arrested for using drugs are capable of rational responses to questions from police officers.Claim 2: No drug user who has been arrested would have a vested interest in making the arresting officer believe the drug user thinks drug usage is bad.Conclusion: Therefore, a survey conducted on arrested drug users must be an accurate representation of the beliefs of all drug users.Clearly, both of the above claims are suspect. In fact, the suspicion is so great and so obvious as to render the entire survey moot. Here's another favorite set of claims used to support the war on some drugs:Claim 1: Raising drug prices reduces overall drug use.Claim 2: Reducing overall drug use leads to lower drug addiction rates.Claim 3: The best way to increase prices is to artificially inflate them by making the drugs illegal.Conclusion: Therefore, we must continue to make some drugs illegal in order to keep prices high and reduce drug addiction.Again, all of the above claims are suspect--especially the last two. While drug use rates have been all over the map during the past 80 years of drug prohibition, addiction rates have held relatively steady; thus, there is no correlation between drug use rates and drug addiction rates. Also, making drugs illegal creates a black market, which only adds to the problems created by drugs (and in some cases creates problems with drugs that have no history of creating problems on their own).I hope the above makes sense to everyone. My main point is that while some may have a legitimate beef with abortion on demand for moral reasons, there is no legitimate moral reason for making certain substances illegal. While abortion arguably harms more than just the person making the decision to abort, drugs harm nobody but the drug user, if that. Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by dddd on March 03, 2001 at 00:33:11 PT

Would anyone/someone care to agree with my assertion,that we could draw a paralell between the abortion issue,and the drug issue? Who should decide what people do to their own,personal bodies?....It reminds me of the laws that make suicide illegal.Mandatory minimum,,,we will lock up your corpse for life if you sucessfully kill yourself???I think that the concept of "choice",is closely related to the whole drug war debate.This is why things dont look so good with this new administration.The absurd tweaking of the role of government in our lives,has risen to a whole new era with the Bush administration,where the ghastly concept of federal funding of certain religious entities is being seriously considered.....The road ahead on this journey,is fraught with eninant peril.The LA cop,and the report of his independent survey,is a good example of a pile of CRAP.Complete anecdotal heresay,that is presented as if it were relevant to drug policy....What about my survey in which all the people I asked said that drugs can be fun,and good,if you can avoid the worst part,,,,incarceration?ddddisenfranchised?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Dan Hillman on March 02, 2001 at 22:18:41 PT

Oh, I get it...
> "Do you think we should legalize drugs?" I ask them. And of all those three or four hundred people, only one of them — a young man who did not strike me as being given to serious introspection — responded in the affirmative.Those people he asked were *happy* to be busted for drugs. Such a nice, helpful officer...naturally I have no reason to doubt the word of a member of the LAPD.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by mungojelly on March 02, 2001 at 19:09:35 PT:

an informal survey / addiction
An officer of the LAPD -- a department notorious for abuses of power and even unprovoked beatings -- asks you, while arresting you for a narcotics offense, whether you believe that drugs should be legal. Well, duh. Duh. Talk about living in a bubble. Ask them whether heroin should be available by prescription so that those who are addicted to it can start to live productive lives. Ask them (if you're so cold-hearted as to consider it a question) whether clean needles should be given to addicts so that they don't contract deadly diseases.  About the later claims in this article that addiction is a matter of choice: anyone who says that has never been addicted. I wish that people who have never been an addict would stop presuming to talk about it. & I want to make sure everyone on this board hears this, because those of you who haven't been addicts are probably doing the same thing, in one way or another. I knew I did, before I became addicted (to nicotine). If you can simply choose to stop taking a drug, YOU ARE NOT ADDICTED. An addict cannot just choose to stop taking the drug they are addicted to. They choose not to take it, and then they take it anyway -- it is outside of their control. That is what addiction is. If you have done tobacco, cocaine, alcohol or heroin and you were able to stop simply by deciding to stop, you were NOT addicted -- so don't project your experience onto addicts, don't say "why don't you just stop?" It's not that simple. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on March 02, 2001 at 15:27:32 PT

It Worked!
I got it! We can just leave these comments up if you don't care. If I delete one it would look odd but I will if you want me too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on March 02, 2001 at 15:24:17 PT

I'll Try
Hi jAHn,I'll try to fix it but that's a little hard for me to do so here is the link incase I mess it up.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by jAHn on March 02, 2001 at 15:13:38 PT

oops, FoM!, would you?
Delete the parentheses that surround my hyper-link? Thanks if ya do! I find myself with realization that it would be a good idea to NOT APPLY for A DOJ job. You can delete this informative message if you need to! I should've sent an e-messg, but locating it might've caused a prob. To make things faster, here's this posting. Feel free to delete it, I just thought I would be kinda-kind! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by jAHn on March 02, 2001 at 15:09:24 PT

Know something Funny, Kevin?
 Re: under the Column that Reads: Marijuana. 2nd, Look at the DEA's "View of Risk on Dependance" column- the last vertical row. Notice how good the eyes and minds are of these Mind-Bending-Drug-Prohibitors are...when was the last time a "professional" was paid to spell PSY-CHO-LOGICAL, without the Y coming after the S in PSY? Can't remember you say? Or, I know people that have lost GREAT jobs because of a misspell! One wouldn't expect the, uh, Department of Justice to make such a Dumb/Dubya mistake. Hasn't the question been raised: Are the problems that exist in "our society" begin to nest in the DOJ? i.e.: Racial Profiling, UnEQUAL prosecution and sentencing, Human Rights Neglection, all of the NASTIEST characteristics of a Human Being that one could detest to. I don't think that it was because of "intellectual chance" that a (assumedly) Caucasian person wrote this WebCoding, or even the Official Hard Copy that's law. It's even a greater shame that these people fight with words that THEY can't even spell. I guess it goes to show the psychologically deteriorating effects that Lying and Misuse can muster upon their human brains. 70 more years and we'll see that Laugh is spelled Obey  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by ekim on March 02, 2001 at 14:36:47 PT:

none of us wants to be part of the blackmarket
This officer truly is in denial. Who among us is happy to pay 150.00$ for a oz. When the family could us the money elsewhere. How many of us had no money and sold ourselvs instead. The blackmarket is what stands in the way of honest people. One cannot feel good about ones self knowing how bad we are hurting each other by taking money from someone who cannot afford the overinflated sums. "Do you think we should legalize drugs?" I ask them. And of all those three or four hundred people, only one of them — a young man who did not strike me as being given to serious introspection — responded in the affirmative. The rest of them, men and women of all races and backgrounds, were opposed to the idea of legalization. When I asked them why, the most common answer was something along the lines of, "Drugs have ruined my life. I wish I had never started up with them." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on March 02, 2001 at 11:58:47 PT

I'll Fix It
Hi Kevin, No problem at all but I'll remove the first one. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Kevin Hebert on March 02, 2001 at 11:30:59 PT:

That link didn't work =)
Here it is:
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment

Name:       Optional Password: 
Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL: 
Link Title: