[Winona Online Democracy]
The Winona Daily News ran a story on Tuesday titled "Krage wants 'dirtbags' out" [1]. The story opens with: > Gunmen and drug dealers have worn out their welcome in Winona, if > 2nd Ward Councilman Gerry Krage has anything to say about it. > "We're going to run these dirtbags out of town," Not to disparage Mr. Krage's noble motives, but I question the value of this sort of policy. It appears this situation is related to the war on drugs. I would like to present a general theory that the war on drugs is counter-productive. INTRODUCTION I do not argue that people should run out and buy drugs. Drugs cause all kinds of problems. They are hazardous to your health. They impair your judgment. Many drugs are addictive, leading users to develop a habit which takes control of their lives. I do argue, however, that the war on drugs causes more problems than the drugs themselves. This theory is not without support. In the 2000 election, presidential candidates for the Green [2] and Libertarian [3] Parties strongly opposed the war on drugs. The candidate from the Natural Law Party [4] favored weakening the war on drugs. THE WAR ON DRUGS INCREASES CRIME The crux of the problem is the market surrounding recreational drugs. Drugs are in high demand. Since no one can supply the market legally, unscrupulous entrepreneurs step in to supply the market illegally. The resulting black market is the primary reason the war on drugs causes more problems than it solves. Enter common drug mythology. When asked what's wrong with drugs, many people will say, drugs lead to gangs, drugs make people steal to support their habit, drugs increase crime, drugs cause gangs to fight over turf, and drugs are loaded with dangerous contaminants. I disagree. Drugs don't cause any of those problems. The black market surrounding drugs causes those problems. Organized crime forms to manage the business of dealing drugs. If drugs were legal, they could be sold in stores rather than pushed by gangsters. One of the motives for overturning prohibition was to get rid of mobsters who financed their lifestyle by selling alcohol. Drug users steal to support their habit because drugs cost a fortune. If drugs were legal, corporations would sell them for slightly more than the cost of production. Users could finance their habit with a minimum wage job. Since drugs are illegal, drug dealers can not resolve their disputes in court. Instead they resolve their disputes with fists, guns, and drive-by shootings. If someone threatens to turn a drug dealer in, the dealer's options are to 1) get caught, 2) convince the witness to change their mind, or 3) eliminate the witness. Given the extreme penalties for drug dealing, few dealers are willing to accept option one. If drugs were legal, disputes would be resolved in court and drug-related blackmail would be virtually non-existent. Drugs are manufactured by amateurs in makeshift labs. In order to maximize profits, drug dealers dilute their drugs with other materials. If drugs were legal, they would be manufactured by professional chemists in clean, government regulated labs. Following the World Trade Center attacks, the Bush administration put out ads that blame drugs for funding terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's analysis ended there. I think it's more accurate to say, black markets fund organized crime in general. Terrorists and other criminals raise funds through black markets because it's highly profitable, and because the government can't monitor transactions. The logical solution is to legalize and regulate drugs. Competition will drive the price down, making the black market unprofitable, and thus a useless revenue source for terrorism. WAR ON A CONCEPT (doesn't directly relate to Winona) Aside from driving a black market, I take issue with the war on drugs for another reason. It is a war on a concept. You can't kill a concept. There is no way to win this so-called war. No matter how hard we try, drugs will still exist. Under the guise of 'war', we have already taken extraordinary measures to solve the nation's drug problem. We have instituted harsh penalties. We have eroded the fourth amendment. We have eroded the fifth amendment. We have meddled with foreign countries. We have created an entire federal agency whose sole purpose is to fight the war on drugs. And still, some people wish to expand the war on drugs even further [5]. In New York, users face a mandatory sentence of 15 years to life for possession of 4 ounces of a controlled substance [6]. The theory is, the harsher the penalty, the less likely someone is to violate the law. Yet the theory has been consistently proven wrong when applied to the war on drugs. Instead, harsh penalties just make the black market more vicious. The courts have used the war on drugs to continually poke holes in the fourth amendment. The courts have allowed warrantless searches of cars [7] (even though the police had plenty of time to get a warrant), searches of homes based on the idea that if someone is visiting, no one in the home has a reasonable expectation of privacy [8], "running" away from the police is sufficient reason for the police to stop and search you [9], and many, many more. All to fight the war on drugs and all to no avail. If we can't keep drugs out of prisons [10], what sort of lifestyle will we have to live to keep drugs away from ordinary citizens? In the hopes of cutting off drug-dealer's resources, the federal government passed civil forfeiture laws. The laws permit the police to seize property they suspect may have been acquired with drug money. The police do not have to charge the suspect with a crime, much less get a conviction. If the suspect wants their property back, they have to sue the police in federal court (cost $10-20,000) and prove that they acquired the property legally. The United States has been sending money to Colombia to fight cocaine producers. In response to reduced cocaine supplies, drug dealers in the United States have been domestically manufacturing much more dangerous methamphetamines. STILL NEED TO ADDRESS DRUG PROBLEM While I oppose the war on drugs, I do not think the government should take a laissez faire approach to the drug problem. Instead we should focus on regulation, education, and treatment. Drugs should be packaged with indicators of their dangers (addictive, hallucinogenic, interacts with alcohol or other drugs, etc.). The package should include a URL were users can learn more. We should restrict the advertising of drugs. And finally, the government should tax and license the sale of drugs. We should focus on educating people about the effects of drug-use. When someone has the opportunity to use a drug, they should be able to make an educated assessment about the dangers of that drug. Finally, we should provide treatment for drug addicts. Some drugs take a toll on worker productivity and absenteeism. Not only does it harm the user, but it also effects the economy. With free treatment, addicts will get back on their feet sooner and become productive members of society again. CONCLUSION The war on drugs started three decades ago during the Nixon administration. Since that time, we have increased penalties, forfeited civil liberties, built up the world's largest prison population, created expensive bureaucracies to fight the war on drugs, and we still have a sizable drug problem. As long as the war on drugs continues, the black market and all the troubles that come with it will persist in Winona. If the city can't end the black market (and it can't [11]), the city has little choice but to continue enforcing the law. But I think we're fooling ourselves if we expect a crackdown on drug offenders to solve anything [12]. ----- [1] Winona Daily News story on running the bad guys out of town http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2003/06/03/news/02krage.txt [2] Ralph Nader (Green Party) position on the war on drugs http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Drugs.htm [3] Harry Browne (Libertarian Party) position on the war on drugs http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Harry_Browne_Drugs.htm [4] John Hagelin (Natural Law Party) position on the war on drugs http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/John_Hagelin_Drugs.htm [5] Al Gore, Alan Keys, Dick Cheney, Elizabeth Dole, Gary Bauer, George W. Bush, Howard Phillips, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Pat Buchanan, and Steve Forbes all propose expanding the war on drugs. http://www.issues2000.org/Drugs.htm#Headlines [6] 15 to life for possession of four ounces of a controlled substance in New York http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/projects/prison/po111500s1.shtml [7] Maryland v. Dyson. Supreme Court permits warrantless searches of cars. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1062.ZPC.html [8] Minnesota v. Carter. Supreme Court says no expectation of privacy if you have a visitor. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1147.ZS.html [9] Illinois v. Wardlow. 'Running' from the police is sufficient reason to search someone. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1036.ZS.html Writing for a partial decent, Justice Stevens said, "A pedestrian may break into a run for a variety of reasons-to catch up with a friend a block or two away, to seek shelter from an impending storm, to arrive at a bus stop before the bus leaves, to get home in time for dinner, to resume jogging after a pause for rest, to avoid contact with a bore or a bully, or simply to answer the call of nature-any of which might coincide with the arrival of an officer in the vicinity" [10] Pennsylvania prisons crack down on drugs. Only two percent of inmates continue to use drugs. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000241c.pdf [11] The war on drugs involves legislation at the state and federal levels. Winona does not have the power to overturn those laws. If drug dealers and drug users have to worry about state and federal enforcement, drugs will continue to feed a black market. [12] The WDN article states > "It looks like it's time for Batman to be back," he said, > recalling how several years ago citizens mobilized and > successfully put an end to a surge in criminal activity in > the city. I question this claim. The city has been using no-knock warrants and making drug busts for as long as I can remember (starting around 1996 or so). I don't recall any lull in activity. I realize the city had a short crime wave some time back. But as far as I am aware, that crime wave was unrelated to drugs. _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
