LEGALIZE DRUGS ?

Time to jump back into the fray courtesy of our new blogger: The Barrister of Ballentrae.

AN ARGUMENT BASED ON LIBERTY AND UTILITY FOR THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF DRUGS

　

I was asked by H. Rumpole to write a piece further explaining my belief that personal use and possession of drugs Should Not Be Illegal. I know that the first question is who is Rumpole; and I can only say he looks like Gary Cooper.

Many may suspect that this article will argue primarily for decriminalization of Cannabis. That a comparison of risk versus benefits and the relatively lack of harm of the herb justify its legalization. For those interested in Cannabis legalization, that please go to the NORML link,

For those Nay-sayers on Cannabis, please go to this link, Cannabis and Cannabinoids. 

This is a link to The National Cancer Institute at the the National Institutes of Health, document clearly the lack of danger and high level of benefits of Cannabis.

I need to start with a proposition that to use intoxicants , is Natural, Universal , even Archetypical, of Humans. Our Species historically has ingested substances to intox, impair and alter their/our perceptions. In every culture across the world , across recorded history, our species had used nature. Rum to British seamen. rice wine or rice beer to the builders of the Great Wall. The German Beer Law comes from the need to stop the use of wheat in beer production, causing the price of bread to dramatically increase , so the limited beer to barley.. In cultures that shun alcohol, cannabis as leaf, kif or hash is smoked, as is the poppy [ opium].  In North America Tobacco, mushrooms, and in our South West the indigenous peoples had peyote and mushrooms. In the Andes other organics, like Ayahuasca and coca leaf are used. Four -Thousand ( 4,000 ) years ago , at the beginning of Human recorded History, Egyptologist tell us that, there`are records detailing how much beer a day was supplied to the labor who built the pyramids. Ten-Thousand years ago, Those that dig in the Neander Valley tell us that they have found evidence of ritual use of drugs and consumption of beer like beverages, dating back about Ten to Twelve Thousand ( 10,000 - 12, 000 ) years ago. It is hard not to believe the anthropological evidence. Likely we Humans did not start ingesting for intoxication then, Ten - Thousand ( 10, 000 ) years ago, but we were ingesting to intox, impair and alter our perceptions FIFTY THOUSAND ( 50, 000 ) Years Ago .

Given our historical archetypical use , it can be said that use / possession is not in and of itself morally, spiritually or physically harmful nor evil. Instead it is Natural, Universal , even Archetypical, of Humans to ingest substances to intox, impair and alter their/our perceptions.

 BUT , Let me be clear, Let me scream it:

I AM NOT SUGGESTING LEGALIZING DUI / DWI. THOSE THAT DRIVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OR WHILE IMPAIRED ENDANGER US ALL AND THAT BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE ILLEGAL ! DRINK BUT DON'T DRIVE ; SMOKE BUT NOT BEHIND THE WHEEL ; BOAT or FLY STRAIGHT

Now we must ask : What Power Does Our Government Have to Tell US, as Free Adult Citizens , What Our Intoxicating Substance Can Be. We are free willed and responsible for ourselves. Remembering the above, that DUI / DWI is and should be illegal , what right does Government have to tell me what I can use for my buzz? The Crime associated with Drugs arises from drug laws, just as crime arose from Prohibition. In Fact Alcohol Prohibition is the perfect example. By Outlawing something that people were going to do , it made criminals out of ordinary men and women, who only wanted a drink. It bred disrespect for the law, for a law that people do not like and will not follow is ignored and creates a atmosphere that all laws can be disrespected. Worse, real criminals organized to supply the forbidden but thirsted for substances. Was Capone that different from today's Mexican drug gangs or the ones us old timers remember from the Mutiny, those of Medillen and Cali .

Removing the prohibition removes most of the criminal element, does not breed disrespect of the law and most importantly does not turn everyday people into criminals by use or possession of the malum prohibitum. Liquor Stores have ads not turf wars. The States where Marijuana is not criminal have shown no increase in crime, nor are California medical marijuana stores hell-holes.

Now borrowing a page from Ron Paul. Where does the constitution authorize the Government to tell be what I can use to intox or impair myself? Seriously , the personal use of substances does not justify federal nor State action. I do recognize the right of the Federal Government to prohibit Importation. But under what stretch of the commerce clause can the Government say I cannot get high? Tell me how that is justified. Its clear` that the WAR ON DRUGS began as a policy to get those who are against President Nixon's political action and not over societal decay due to drugs. Richard Nixon and his cronies need to clamp down on the long haired anti-war hippies and the uppity civil righters, who were rioting and burning the citys and worse voting against Republicans. They all smoked dope , so going after dopers seemed hard on crime and got rid of the 'ememies'. Listen to the Nixon tapes and you will learn how manipulative and anti-citizen Our President could be. Nixon's Federal War on Drugs was created in truth to get the Young anti-war movementers and young black activists out of the voting rolls.

Let us now turn to the Utility or Efficiency of The War on Drugs. Drug use over the last Forty (40 ) years has stayed at relatively the same rate. Some will, Some will not. Some like this, Some like that. The all out effort of the feds and the state governments have not stamped out the desire. But as I have` advanced at the beginning of this article , it is Natural, Universal , even Archetypical, of Humans to ingest substances to intox, impair and alter their/our perceptions. In every culture across the world , across recorded history, our species had used nature this way and laws will not stop that.

I know some will advance the argument that we are protecting society from the harm of abuse. The desire to intox is natural and not evil and that the bad results of drugs flow from its illegality. Considering that we can not or have not cut the desire, who and how are we protecting society by creating crime and disrespect for the law. Others will suggest that we need to protect the user from Themselves { yes I change tense. I like 3rd person plural instead of He/She Her/Him, etc}. So we make convicted felons out of users to protect then from the 2 or 3/10s of a gram [ 2 or 3 /280 of an oz. } of powder or rock. Broward sends them to prison. They can not get work as convicts, can not drive, can not vote. This is To Protect Them?

Last week I reviewed Two ( 2 ) days calendars of Four ( 4 ) Felony / Circuit Court Divisions in the Justice Building. I counted the possession, possession w/ intent, delivery & sales and tampering . I Did NOT count any grow houses or trafficking type cases. It is also important to remember that it cost almost One Hundred ( $ 100 ) dollars a day to imprison someone. Booking costs at least that. In TWO Days ( 2 ) THIRTY - FOUR ( 34 ) people had arraignments for felony drug arrests .Seven (7 ) were No Actioned,Fourteen set for Trial. ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE (165 ) extra days Beyond CTS in DCJ was given , remember at 100 / day { that's $16500 tax dollars} , the rest were Bound-Down to County or CTS. What a waste of Time, Money and Effort.

Div 7 8

Div 10 10

Div 16 8

Div 21 8

　

The War on Drugs is FORTY ( 40 ) Years Old. I have been practicing a quarter century. I have not seen a change in the flow of arrests for drug possession at the Justice Building. To continue a policy that does not work, is repressive , wastes resources and tax dollars is Bad Policy, if not stupid. Legalize it. Or admit its a money maker in court costs . That is unlikely since it seems it costs more to arrest , process and lock-up that comes back in court costs, especially from the indigent. Perhaps we can make it a civil infraction and give a ticket. THAT, at least would raise revenue and make sense.