Decriminalization of Drugs

[DoreneFC at aol.com]

Ahhh, an understandable question. Criminalizing drug use gives friends and 
families of people whose lives get messed up by addiction another lever to 
try to help them. Criminalizing drug use gives people who suffer direct 
neglect and other dangers due to someone else's drug use ways to end the harm 
to themselves or to have others help them reduce the harm. Maybe you are 
lucky enough not to know anyone whose life is so messed up by drugs they 
literally cannot take the first steps to help themselves but encounters with 
the criminal justice system CAN be an excellent way to get these people's 
attention and sometimes to divert them from self-destruction.

The same goes for criminalizing the performance of many activities--driving 
or piloting a vehicle, caring for children,  while under the influence. I am 
willing to entertain the idea that one should not criminalize the drugs but 
only doing nearly all ordinary activities while under their influence. And 
perhaps I would be entertained to hear, say, a defense of the merits vs the 
risks of shopping while tweaking (high on meth), but I am not going to look 
hard for such an argument.

I should note I live in a jurisdiction that has a strong system of drug 
courts that feed into decent but of course underfunded and overstressed 
treatment programs. I am sure WA penal institutions are full of people 
serving ridiculous sentences for drug possession, but WA laws are not QUITE 
as draconian as other states. At least in some areas, cops are also fairly 
open about how enforcement for simple possession is low priority. All of this 
makes it a lot easier for me to total up a LOT of REALLY negative effect of 
meth, the example of choice, and put that into my equation about what I want 
to tolerate and what I do not.

DoreneC

PS: By the way I also think politicians and ordinary citizens should be able 
to admit to SOME drug experimentation as freely as they sometimes admit to 
speeding without any ill effects to their career. HOWEVER, I also think one 
should be able to argue one's point without running amok violating the 
privacy of other people

In a message dated 1/25/2003 10:12:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
jthorn65 at mchsi.com writes:


> Subj:Re: Decriminalization of Drugs 
> Date:1/25/2003 10:12:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:jthorn65 at mchsi.com">jthorn65 at mchsi.com</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:lbo-talk at lists.panix.com">lbo-talk at lists.panix.com</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:lbo-talk at lists.panix.com">lbo-talk at lists.panix.com</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
>  While I agree the "bad effects" of drugs are detrimental to some peoples 
> lives I do not see how criminalizing that behaviour "helps" them. Drugs are 
> available to anyone who wants them, their legal status has almost nothing 
> to do with their availability. I am not certain what position you are 
> putting forward here. That because meth is illegal meth addicts are better 
> off than they would be if meth were legal? I'm not trying to be a prick, I 
> just don't understand your position.
> 
> John Thornton
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20030125/cb30f2e2/attachment.htm>