home

Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven

by TChris

A panel convened by People Against Injustice in New Haven asked whether the drug war is really a race war. There's little dispute that the drug war has had a disproportionate impact on nonwhite offenders.

[W]hile black and Latino men make up just 6 percent of the state's population, they comprise more than 70 percent of the prison population. Is that because they are more criminal?

Not really, said Cliff Thornton, director of Efficacy, a drug reform group in Hartford and Green Party candidate for governor. "Blacks and whites are arrested on drug charges in equal numbers," he said, "but at every stage in the criminal justice process, the ratio of people of color who are caught in the system goes up."

The program also included video clips of the infamous "drug bust" in Tulia, Texas, in which more than 40 innocent African Americans were arrested and many sent to prison on the word of a corrupt white cop, and a film of a similar, but smaller and less well-known, incident in another Texas town a few years later.

Focusing on treatment rather than punishment would be a positive step for offenders of all races.

Norm Pattis said a felony conviction becomes "a disabling event" throughout a person's lifetime, following an individual so he or she can't qualify for student aid, can be evicted from housing, and may be fired from a job or never hired. He proposed decriminalizing or reducing penalties on many offenses that are now treated as felonies ...

< A Culture of Secrecy | Prosecutorial Misconduct Halts Moussaoui Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 08:40:52 AM EST
    Cliff rox!

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 08:42:50 AM EST
    The drug war is a poverty war. Unfortunately drugs and drug crime affect the poor more then the rich for all sorts of reasons. Poor people can't defend themselves as well as rich people so more of them go to jail. On and on and on. The question is do we solve poverty, or stop arresting people for something that is a result of a bigger problem. As a wingnut obviously I support different solutions but we should all agree that not arresting people for commiting crimes is not a way to improve the bigger issues which are poor family structure, poverty and crime.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#3)
    by Johnny on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 08:58:32 AM EST
    Those incarceration numbers are all librul lies. Can we please admit that the drug war is a spectacular failure?

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#4)
    by Pete Guither on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 08:59:43 AM EST
    As a wingnut obviously I support different solutions but we should all agree that not arresting people for commiting crimes is not a way to improve the bigger issues which are poor family structure, poverty and crime.
    How about not making it a crime? Then you wouldn't have to not arrest people for committing crimes. You say the bigger issues are poor family structure, poverty and crime. Well, let's take a look at that. Although almost five times as many whites use illegal drugs as African Americans, nearly twice the number of black men and women are being put behind bars for drug offenses. So what happens to family structure then, with one of the family in prison? You arrest someone for a drug offense (a consensual crime), and put them in prison at a cost of around $25,000 per year to taxpayers. Now you put their freshly unstructured family on welfare and/or food stamps, at taxpayer expense. Is this a conservative value? Crime. With prohibition, you've put complete control of the most lucrative product in poor neighborhoods in the hands of criminals. Oh, that makes sense! And how do you address poverty when the only occupation in some poor neighborhoods that pays enough to feed your family (other than welfare) is drug dealer? If you really want to address crime, poverty and family structure, end the drug war.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 09:34:57 AM EST
    Et al - If you want to discuss the destruction of poor families, both black and white, you need to go all the way back to the 50's when Aid to Dependent Children - ADC - was formulated. Since the rules required NO male in the house, it forced the father from the household if he became unemployed and couldn't support his family. This obviously was a huge contribution to the static underclass problem and all the problems it has brought. On the other hand, if you look back to the thirties and forties you will see that out of wedlock births, married households, etc., are similar across all race lines and income groups. The drug war has merely added to the problem. I think one of the saddest unintended consequences of the Left's bitter opposition to the war and their "we hate Bush" attitude has been that they have alienated many people who would agree that we need a complete rationalization of our drug policy, but who now are too disgusted to make common ground with the Left on any issue.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 09:51:20 AM EST
    Yeah, that's why shrub's at 2 percent with the Black Community. Your strategies workin' like a charm, Jim. You should hang out a shingle.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#7)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 10:10:58 AM EST
    I think one of the saddest unintended consequences of the Left's bitter opposition to the war and their "we hate Bush" attitude has been that they have alienated many people who would agree that we need a complete rationalization of our drug policy, but who now are too disgusted to make common ground with the Left on any issue.
    "I used to think that the drug war was a human tragedy and a political disaster, but now I'm outraged by Michael Moore." Give me a break, Jim. If somebody is irrational enough to think like that then they probably already support the drug war.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#9)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 10:22:17 AM EST
    Only a fool fights in a burning house.
    That's exactly what I was getting at. PPJ gives us an image of an extremely thin-skinned Right. I thought they dealt in moral absolutes, but it's pretty hard to reconcile that with their apparent willingness to pick up their ball and go home just because someone offends them. Boo-hoo. Of course, anyone this capricious would have been worthless to the cause of human rights, or worse. This does give me an idea, though: if the Dixie Chicks suddenly came out against abortion, would we see a pro-choice revolution in the Republican party?

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 11:54:24 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - You might re-read my comment and note that I supported T. Chris in general. The WOD is screwed up and isn't working. I named no politicians and blamed no one for it, instead saying that it needs rationalization and that it does hurt the poor more than the rich. So I find your attempt to bring politics into it amusing. And I think it also proves my point that the politics of the Left has ran off almost everyone who might be willing to have some reasonable discussions on the issue. charlie - Thank you for your silly response. If you would like to try again, please note that the post is about the WOD, and that my comment is about that issue, and why no one can get traction on how to correct it. scar - If the problem can be solved at all, you must appeal to people who would normally have discussions with you about the issue and form a consensus with them. That is not the Far Right. It is the Middle. charlie, Dark Avenger and scar - Your responses all prove that you are not interested in solving the problem, just attacking Repubs and the President. That is a lose-lose. Sad. Very sad.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    PPJ, it's true that you said nothing against ChrisT, but you did get into one of your little rants against the Left, and devoted most of your post to villifying The Left as you do whenever you see an opportunity to do so. So I find your attempt to bring politics into it amusing Talking about the Left wasn't bringing politics into it? Actually, I was bringing in some political history which you label politics, and it is higly risible that in your haste to make a point you can't distinguish between the two subjects. And I think it also proves my point that the politics of the Left has ran off almost everyone who might be willing to have some reasonable discussions on the issue. If you're what's left after almost everyone who might be willing to have some reasonable discussions on the issue has ran off, to expect anything but fulminations and vulperations from you would surely qualify one as a naive optimist. That you don't think you've done what you're accusing others of reminds me of the old passage about moats and beams. You slam the Left, and act all offended when the slam isn't taken as a handshake to work together. TTFN.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 12:20:58 PM EST
    You cannot make all drugs leagal. Cocaine, Heroine, Crack and meth are not products that anyone should be involved with. Weed is debatable and I'm all for Phillip Morris cranking out ciggarets made of pot. But no on this site can seriously support major corporations making money off of the legal distribution of hard drugs. Because you're kidding yourslef that this isn't exactly what would happen if they were made legal. Those who favor bashing the war on drugs can't answer the question...How would you legalize the distribution of hard drugs? These same critics would then moan and groan about "big buisness" getting rich off the backs of addicts. You can't compare hard drugs to prohibition. Alchohal, weed, food, caffine are bad for you in excess but crack etc... is bad for you once. People don't od or have heart attacks the first time they have a beer or smoke a joint.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peaches on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    Those who favor bashing the war on drugs can't answer the question...How would you legalize the distribution of hard drugs?
    Through education, legislation and regulation. Is that so hard.
    These same critics would then moan and groan about "big buisness" getting rich off the backs of addicts.
    With the proper regulation, it will be big business (read republicans) doing the moaning with their calls for free markets and less regulation. But, you may be right, eventually big business wins as they buy off politicans on both sides, if the republicans can't get it done by themselves.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    Slado,
    You cannot make all drugs leagal. Cocaine, Heroine, Crack and meth are not products that anyone should be involved with.
    If an adult wants to put that crap in their bodies, who are we to stop them?

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    Amen roy.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#16)
    by Johnny on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    People don't od or have heart attacks the first time they have a beer or smoke a joint.
    I will agree with you on the pot, but alcohol kills a lot of people their first time around... link Also, what you are proposing is nothing less than "Drug War Light". I am all for legalizing, not just de-criminalizing, all drugs. Not too much would change, except crime would plummet over-night,a nd probably no just from fewer possession arrests either. Ina ddition, another problem I have with your stance is you seem willing to endorse drugs that kill slowly (alcohol, weed (only because there is no such thing as a safe burning substabce to put in your lungs), tobacco, caffeine (excessive caffeine is probably hard on the heart), etc...) while maintaining the prohibition on drugs that can potentially kill someone the first time around. It is extremely rare that it actually happens... With manufacturers making drugs, quality procedures would be in place that the average entrepeneur working out of the backseat of his car just does not comprehend. Higher quality woud lead to safer products. Ina ddition, as much as I hate big business getting rich off things like this, I hate the government spending money prosecuting things like this, even more. With a legalization program (could be run almost identical to the way we distribute the most dangerous drug in america, you know, advertise using scantily clad women at football games), quality and distribution would be more or less under control. It could happen, but first people need to understand they have been lied to about the dangers of drugs and start to understand we embrace the most dangerous drug, even glorify it and promote it's use through symbolic cannibalistic rituals in virtually every place of worship in the country, all the while scorning men and women who toke up and play video games all night.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#17)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    charlie, Dark Avenger and scar - Your responses all prove that you are not interested in solving the problem, just attacking Repubs and the President.
    Pop quiz, Jim. Under the Bush administration has there been more or less money spent on the drug war? More or fewer convictions? How are those of us on The Left (tm) supposed to justify supporting Bush and the Repubs in order to end the drug war when they are the drug war? Isn't that kinda like saying "Martin Luther King chould have done so much more for civil rights if he'd stopped attacking the segregationists and lynch mobs so much. The racists were just coming around, and then he had to be all mean an' shrill. Sad, very sad." It's quite a cop-out to say anyone became a bigot because anti-bigots existed. It's an even bigger cop-out to say Michael Moore caused the drug war. Jesus.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#18)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    Oh, and, Jim - as others have noted, the drug war was started by Richard Nixon who, while extremely liberal by today's standards, is pretty hard to lump in with "the left". I know, I know - we said some nasty things about Nixon, so it's still all the fault of The Left (tm).
    Those who favor bashing the war on drugs can't answer the question...How would you legalize the distribution of hard drugs?
    Sell 'em at Wal-Mart. And anywhere else. Who cares? No, seriously. What's the worst that could happen? Don't tell me that 50 million people would OD on heroin overnight. I, and most other Americans, could walk down the street and buy a handle of gin and drink myself to death tonight if I wanted. I don't, because I'm not suicidal or retarded. Similarly, I could go huff a can of spray paint. I don't. I could have done "hard" drugs at various points in my life and I chose not to. Most people are the same way. I think the worst-case scenario is that whoever is currently using cocaine and heroin will at least be fiscally solvent, and I won't have to worry about hearing how so-and-so is now a drug dealer.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    Johnny, First of all I play lots of video games and other then the occasional beer I try not to play in an altered state. Also I don't think people drink a beer and become instantly addicted to alchohal like you can to crack, crank etc... Secondly are you suggesting that a commerical orginization would mass produce speed, meth, acid, crank and crack? Where would we sell it? How many regulations would there need to be? Would you need a license to smoke crack? An ABC store where hard drugs are sold? If this is your argument so be it. At least you recognize that this is the obvious result of legalization. Ever wondered if prison is a better place for a crack addict then being free to use drugs until they die? I'm all for free choice but somethings are worthy of being off limits. Some arguing for legalization seem to feel that those incarcerated wouldn't commit crimes if not for drugs being illegal. I think for "most" of these people this is just their illegal activity of choice. Would drug dealers instatnly apply for jobs at WalMart to redistribute their now legal fair?

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#20)
    by Johnny on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 05:41:11 PM EST
    You are being deliberately obtuse. The manufacture and distribution would go down exactly as it does with alcohol. I am even allowed to brew certain amounts of alcohol all by my big self even! So too could I brew me some wicked old speed and have an 80's day at work! Got any solid evidence that coke causes instant addiction? Cuz sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west that is a drug I mave partaken of and not been addicted. Or been killed. Hell, even that chicksh!t preznit snorted it up-and he is preznit now! The fact you are misinformed on the addictive properties of chemicals is what is blocking your ability to see that if they are manufactured and distributed like alcohol, things fall into place. And yes, crime will fall dramatically, and not just from possession arrests falling.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 05:59:47 PM EST
    Dark Avenger - I guess one man's rant is another's accurate, even pithy, comment. But surely you aren't claiming that the activities of the DNC, and the Left in general, has attracted the Middle. If so, why is Bush in the WH? And no, none of the "stolen" claims is acceptable. As you wrote:
    You slam the Left, and act all offended when the slam isn't taken as a handshake to work together.
    Change "Left" to "country" and you make my point. Slado - I have often noted that the WOD is screwed up, all the while saying I want nothing to do with them. I am not a user of any, except... A good glass of red with dinner and a shot of Stoly from time to time. I would make tobacco, pot and booze legal and sell them from your local liquor store. No where else. And I would make the penalties for anyone selling/giving to minors extremely severe. I mean severe. I would allow no advertising in any media for any reason. As for heroin, coke and speed, I'd give it away to addicts. All you would have to do is register at your local pharmacy and you could have all you want. If you OD'd... gene pool improvement. If you got picked up for DUI, you would be looking at 12 months, first offense. Unauthorized sales/gifts to anyone would result in five years the first time and 50 the second. Prior to the above I would give amnesty to those previously convicted of a drug offense, with the stipulation that they are all treated as "first offenders." The next offense gets them the penalty of the second offense. PCP, Speed, date rape, etc. are truly problems. I'd lay the hammer on anyone selling, or using in the case of the date rape drug. And I'd have all the education programs I could get to convince people they shouldn't use the stuff. I have seen two people die of the big "E" and have known three alcoholics. While any and all of it may make you feel good, it all will kill. scar - Pop answer. I don't care how much money has, or has not, been spent on the WOD by the Bush admin. Repeat after me. PPJ is a social liberal. He voted for Bush because it is obvious that the Left can't protect the country. AND THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. You need to quit worrying about how to get along with the FAR RIGHT. They are never going to be your friend. But if you demonstrated a little concern about the WOT the MIDDLE might start paying attention to your position on the WOD.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#22)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 07:29:07 PM EST
    Pop answer. I don't care how much money has, or has not, been spent on the WOD by the Bush admin. Repeat after me. PPJ is a social liberal. He voted for Bush because it is obvious that the Left can't protect the country. AND THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. Well, sorry, but I'm going to disagree. I am of the opinion that, aside from a direct nuclear strike on a major metropolitan area, no terrorist attack could possibly have a greater negative impact on the country than, say, the trillion plus dollars the Iraq war will end up costing. I'm also of the opinion that there aren't any sleeper cells, sorry. I'm sorry if I'm insufficiently scared. If someone nukes Atlanta I guess I'll pay for it, but until then I will proudly say, give me liberty or give me death. I don't need you and George "protecting" me from a nonexistant threat by invading Iraq. Yes, I'll say it: I remember 9/11 and I'm still not worried. You know why? Because 9/11 was not an impeccable masterstroke. Republicans like to say that "nobody could have known" but this is simply counterfactual. It was, at best, a mind-boggling pooch-screwing on our part that, quite frankly, Terri Schiavo could have handled better. In light of this, anyone who thinks that another attack is always imminent (i.e. Republicans like yourself) must have a pretty dim view of the new security government apparatus (which was, uh, made by Republicans.) How I'm supposed to make sense of this, I have no idea. But as it stands, I am far more likely be mugged by a crackhead than killed in a terrorist attack. I think most residents of urban areas would say the same. So, please don't lecture me about how you are looking out for my safety more than I am, until you can prove it. (And, no, the story about the guy who wanted to blow the cockpit door open with his shoe doesn't count.) I suppose this makes me a far, far, far leftie, like Marx times Lenin squared, by some tortured logic. I guess I'll live with that. I believe history will write that the reactionaries were, as usual, wrong.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#23)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 07:35:30 PM EST
    Oh, I forgot to mention that my original home of New Orleans was kinda wiped off the map by, um, Bush's superior ability to protect the country. Heckuva job. I also got to witness the Right's oh-so-amazing skill at responding to a disaster. Not. You sure these guys are really up to the task, Jim? Who do you think would handle a WMD attack better: Bush's FEMA or Clinton's FEMA? Be honest. And think about how you reconcile that with
    it is obvious that the Left can't protect the country. AND THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.


    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 10:37:24 PM EST
    I guess one man's rant is another's accurate, even pithy, comment. I will grant you expertise in the former, the latter, to quote Jon Steward, "Not so much". But surely you aren't claiming that the activities of the DNC, and the Left in general, has attracted the Middle. Did I mention the DNC in my post in some sort of coded reference that I unwittingly made here? 10,000 pardons if I did so. Its' funny how you increase the scope of your attack even as you attempt to berate me and try to start an argument with me that you've already lost with others. Funny how you start itching to defend the legitimacy of his election, but go and pick that fight with someone else, your attempted evasion is most telling. As for your switching Left for country, you engage in the same tactic by equating any attack on your beloved Arbusto with an attack on the country, which perhaps, is one of many reasons you're increasingly representing a shrinking minority in this country. TTFN.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#25)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 12:38:34 AM EST
    Jim, you are prohibition light as well... The biggest disagreement I have with your "donate the drugs" program is this: yet another database of people that the gov't has already decided it can live without. Your genepool remark is, well, horrifying at best. Do you feel the same way about soldiers killed? Cops killed? Coal miners killed? Drivers killed? Children bicyclists killed? Elderly who fall down the steps? People born with congenital heart disease? People who live in suburban areas with high pollution (even though man made pollutants are not contributing to environmental degradation)that are suffering and sometimes die from Asthma? The guy who gets killed during a liqour store hold-up because he was too stupid and slow to duck? The women who get breast cancer and die at 30 because they had the gall to develop a disease? The poor SOB that has no access to any kind of preventative healthcare? Because everytime one of them snuffs it, it means they will NOT be producing offspring capable of dying in the same manner. Immediate gene pool improvement. Eugenics aside, I have to agree that Scar and TDA bring up some valid arguments against your "Bush is the great protector" spiel...

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 05:39:12 AM EST
    scar writes:
    Oh, I forgot to mention that my original home of New Orleans was kinda wiped off the map by, um, Bush's superior ability to protect the country.
    Bush can manufacture and guide hurricanes? Wow! Of course getting from the coast all the way to Tehran may be a stretch for him. Johnny, Johnny... Why would I equate people who OD on drugs with cops and soldiers who are killed in the line of duty? And yes, the remark was over the top. But the question is, if you give away drugs, how will tou keep people from ovedosing? My answer is, you don't. If they want to, let'em. BTW - That person getting killed in a liquor store robbery... if he is the robber, yes. Gene pool improvement. And no, I don't believe in eugenics.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#27)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 09:59:02 AM EST
    Hyperbole is your strong suit Jim. So does anyone gotta link showing that "illicit" drugs are more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco? Alcohol is issued in small doses, free of charge, to children as young as 13, by a large organization with absolute moral authority in their lives. It is part of a ritualized event celebrating cannibalism and supernatural connection. From the time many children are old enough to grow pubes, they are drinking alcohol ritually. Alcohol is a killer drug. It's side effects kill 20,000 people a year in this country. More than guns. More than pot. More than crank. The other drug prohibition-light supporters want to keep selling is tobacco. No need to go into it's effects. Alcohol is evil. The reason why I take affront at your psuedo-eugenics statement Jim, is because you have obviously never been to the rez in Pine Ridge. Take a tour, and learn what alcoholism is really all about.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    Jim, frankly, I can't take you seriously on this or any other issue as you show no knowledge of the subject matter and no inclination to do anything whatsoever but defend shrub and all things republican regardless of the issue or the application to the point of near insanity. For example, if I say that the poppy crop is greater now than it was before we went into Afghanistan, you say "Well Clinton could've wiped it out but didn't. Don't blame it on Bush! That's not fair!" when the problem's been in place for hundreds if not thousands of years. If I say I'm experiencing high winds up on my hill today you'd say "Clinton had 8 years to do something about the weather. Don't blame bush."

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    Johnny - The issue isn't the safety of illicit drugs versus legal drugs. The issue is rationalization of our national drug policy. I posed several positions as starting points. If you have better suggestions, make them. As to what I do, or do not know, about alcoholism is not known by you. charlie - This will come as a surprise to you, and probably crush your feelings. But I really don't care what you believe, or think, about me. I have been supporting social liberal positions for years, including about three years on Talk Left. Your problem is that you seem to think that you can not support the President in his foreign policy, yes the WOT, and still be for other issues that he, and the Right, do not support. This problem of yours demonstrates that you are remarkably partisan in your positions, wanting only to attack with no real interest in solutions. As I have noted before, the Far Left and the Far Right are on the opposite sides of the same coin. Now, as I wrote to Johnny, I have made several suggestions re our drug policy. He has made some comments, but no suggestions. Neither have you.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#30)
    by Johnny on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 08:01:45 PM EST
    JIm, what part of "legalize" do you have a problem with? What part of that concept do you not comprehend? That is my stance. As the free-marketeers will tell you, manufacturing, distribution, etc. will take care of itself. Under careful testing and quality standards from the FDA. You know, liek when I mentioned in this very thread that drugs should be treated like alcohol? Go back and READ before you accuse me of making comments. There is already a solid model in place on how to legally distribute lethal materials. That is the policy I want. I have stated that, several times. Now, I really don't care what you think you know about alcoholism, until you visit the rez, you ain't seen it. Seriously. Now go back to deliberately mis-understanding people's posts.

    Re: Drugs and Race Explored in New Haven (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 07:28:04 AM EST
    Johnny - I live in the world of the possible. I propose selling tobacco, pot and alcoholic beverages from what we now call liquor stores. Purpose, control distribution to minors. You might, just might, get that implemented. I propose giving away heroin, coke and speed to addicts. Purpose. Reduce the crime associated with selling them by removing the profit motive and the crime caused by the high cost of acquiring them by addicts. You just might get this implemented on that basis and that by removing the motive for selling to minors and others, your addicts will eventually be a very small number. But you will never get them "legalized" and sold in the market place. Other drugs, PCP, meth, date rape, etc., should just not be available or used. Your comments about which is the "worst" of the drugs is noted. I also note that there does appear to be a connection between genetics and various drugs. Eskimos and NAs have a fairly well defined problem with alcohol. Also, I have known people who could smoke cigarettes at the bar, and never use them the next day, while others become addicted and have great difficulty quitting, even when faced with the big "E" and a certain miserable life and death if they don't quit. One of the reasons for government is to promote the common welfare. Use and sale of these drugs certainly falls within that guideline. I think the current system is screwed up. But I don't see us just making everything legal, nor should we.