Judge Jim Gray on the Drug War

[Aerosoul]

Part 1 (10:43)

http://www.youtube.com/v/8RWfCwl0lZo

Part 2 (8:11)

http://www.youtube.com/v/meciIVRznyU

Part 3 (6:20)

http://www.youtube.com/v/WfwJTgsyu5w

[Mastermind]

Wow...and I thought I was the only person who understood this. Thanks for the post. I am delighted that people in higher positions are finally FINALLY getting it!

As a past LEO, I argued this to the point of exhaustion...and was even threatened with my job if I did not STFU.

There is a vast conspiracy in our nation that has gotten so out of control it is now a massive parasite on our society and this is the Monstrous Law Enforcement Complex that preys on our society.

The question is, can it be stopped...and, my answer is, NO...it can not be stopped, not ever. It is far too entrenched within our social structures and it clings to its benefits and money teat viciously.

Until drugs are legalized, decriminalized, taxed and regulated properly, we are at it's mercy... . It is just not politically possible.

I had hope the recent Kaleefourneeya budget debacle would stimulate some sort of reasonable attitude toward MJ at least...but, now, I see they have completely ignored the issue in the budget fights.

[PeterG]

I agree with all this. I also think that one of the reasons the drugtrade is allowed to continue, is that it serves a geopolitical purpose. From the cocaine druglords in latin America who were allowed to smuggle vast quantities of cocaine into the US in exchange for also fighting the reds, to the present day druglords in Afghanistan, including Karzai and his people, who are allowed to deal in heroin in exchange for helping to fight the taliban/AQ. All over the world, there are extremely powerful men, worth billions, with thousands of armed men, and entire governments on their payrolls, that can be used for political purposes.

The 'war on drugs' is so mindbogglingly unsuccessful, i can only conclude that there really is no such 'war', it's all a charade.

[Mastermind]

^^ Very True. From my perspective, my cohorts in the LEO orgs were more than willing to not doo too much lest they win.

I actually knew of a case where the LEOs involved waited for a dealer to get "just so far along" with no other reason than they wanted to confiscate his Lexus....once he paid it off, they swooped in and did their little raid...the entire operation was focused entirely around the vehicle they wanted for their own. They presented it to their chief during a little celebration..."Here's your new ride boss"...he was not surprised because he orchestrated it entirely because he wanted the vehicle for his own "official" use.

There is no telling how much drug was bought and sold while the LEO's waited to spring their trap.

I was utterly disgusted and told them so...and not one of the team understood my concerns about their actions...not one! That's how far it has gone.

[WCF.KAS]

Wow...and I thought I was the only person who understood this. Thanks for the post. I am delighted that people in higher positions are finally FINALLY getting it!

As a past LEO, I argued this to the point of exhaustion...and was even threatened with my job if I did not STFU.

There is a vast conspiracy in our nation that has gotten so out of control it is now a massive parasite on our society and this is the Monstrous Law Enforcement Complex that preys on our society.

The question is, can it be stopped...and, my answer is, NO...it can not be stopped, not ever. It is far too entrenched within our social structures and it clings to its benefits and money teat viciously.

Until drugs are legalized, decriminalized, taxed and regulated properly, we are at it's mercy... . It is just not politically possible.

I had hope the recent Kaleefourneeya budget debacle would stimulate some sort of reasonable attitude toward MJ at least...but, now, I see they have completely ignored the issue in the budget fights.
Not only have they totally ignored it, but Kerlikowski (obama's drug czar) says marijuana legalization is "not even in his or the president's vocabulary"

[hank2222]

you are right we need to make it legal and tax the heck out of it..

[PeterG]

I also believe that certain individuals, those who can't control their use of alcohol or other drugs, will basically implode in the end, regardless of the laws where they live. I have seen people do so in nations where drugs were basically legalized, and in other places where they would basically be jailed for life. The law in itself, had little or no influence in the matter.

We also have harsh sentences for people smuggling drugs to Norway - 15-20 years in prison is not uncommon. What does this mean in practice? It means that the poor schmuck from Africa they pay 3000$ to be a mule, risk a decade or two behind bars. The people who really profit from drugs, are never caught with them anyway. So a typical big victory in the 'war on drugs', is like when the cops seize 15 KGs of amphetamine, like they did here last week. The mule, some third world schmuck, gets life behind bars.

Meanwhile, the price and availability on the streets is not affected in the slightest. Meaning it was all for nothing.

[SOG]

Until drugs are legalized, decriminalized, taxed and regulated properly, we are at it's mercy... . It is just not politically possible.

Okay, here is a question in the theoretical result of your statement. Says drugs were legalized just like booze and the whole nine yards right? But then what would the result be? More laws for consumption limits, more bureaucracy on the back end to deal with all these substances and even better, the host of "officially" unrecognized drugs that would crop up as an alternative to legal drugs only.

Also, if the pharmaceutical industry controls the prices and people become displeased, then the very same drugs would be sold illegally at lower prices and you would have drug dealers popping up all over the place yet again. Or what if regulations were put in place so you couldn't buy a lot of drugs thus not becoming a addict, but just a casual user? Of course people would once again use illegal drug dealers.

And on top of all that, what about the fight over which drugs are legal or not? Where do you draw the line? Which drugs make the "cut"? Can you imagine the politics in that battle dragging on year after year? Look at the mass host of drugs and imagine all the new drugs that would be legally cooked up by companies and the resulting special interest groups that would infect the system with bribes and the whole nine yards.

On top of all this you would have MUCH more exposure to the public mass since it is legal, publicly condoned, readily available, can be used at parties, maybe even public businesses as long as you have a designated driver, more overdoses, more bodily harm from misuse, more public intoxication incidences, the whole nine yards. Not to mention the public strain on addiction, help groups and the whole nine yards.

If I understand you correctly you are saying legalize the problem which lifts the burden off of LEO and society as a whole and let capitalism run with it. But with everything I mentioned, I think legalization would usher in an entirely different set of legal and public problems that would have us equally pained if not more in the long run albeit in a different way.

If this was an issue over weed, I really wouldn't care as much. But if we are talking about the whole mess of drugs out there, ouch. And as Two Sheds said the last time this came up, if drugs are legalized then I get to carry a mace and smash the heads of the zombie masses milling around... (Loose quote)

The problems you mention about LEO dealing with drugs are that of corruption, complacement and people not doing their jobs as they should. Public officials feeling they are "entitled" to so much more than they are given. In other words, politicians...

And just out of curiosity, what other countries legalize drugs including hard drugs and what is their population, political climate, ethnic majority etc? I'm tapped to find a similar working comparison to what is proposed?

[WCF.KAS]

And just out of curiosity, what other countries legalize drugs including hard drugs and what is their population, political climate, ethnic majority etc? I'm tapped to find a similar working comparison to what is proposed?

Portugal....Not super similiar to the US but last time I checked portugal hasn't fallen to the "zombie masses"

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

[SOG]

I also believe that certain individuals, those who can't control their use of alcohol or other drugs, will basically implode in the end, regardless of the laws where they live. I have seen people do so in nations where drugs were basically legalized, and in other places where they would basically be jailed for life. The law in itself, had little or no influence in the matter.
So then basically what you're saying is you don't have elected officials who can pass effective laws? So the issue is the same with the United States, it's not that you can't do something about it, but rather you wont?


We also have harsh sentences for people smuggling drugs to Norway - 15-20 years in prison is not uncommon. What does this mean in practice? It means that the poor schmuck from Africa they pay 3000$ to be a mule, risk a decade or two behind bars. The people who really profit from drugs, are never caught with them anyway. So a typical big victory in the 'war on drugs', is like when the cops seize 15 KGs of amphetamine, like they did here last week. The mule, some third world schmuck, gets life behind bars.

Meanwhile, the price and availability on the streets is not affected in the slightest. Meaning it was all for nothing.

That really does suck, I totally understand but it seems to be the result of haphazard lawmaking. Perhaps there are ways of dealing with the problem but as a society you won't enact them so in the end the greatest enemy is yourself (ourselves) so you are stuck in a gray area.

One thing I would like to point out is, you are willing to go all the way down ONE path and fully legalize drugs, but on the flip side you have never gone FULLY down the other path and really, really tried fighting them. It would be like casually working in your spare time to start a business and as you are failing you determine "this isn't for me". Well how do you know if you never actually REALLY tried? In other words you passed a handful of laws that were heavily politically debated, washed down and ultimately wholly ineffective. (Just like us) And when you passed the "hard" laws to combat drugs, they were stupid and impractical (Just like us). So in hindsight how can you say it doesn't work when you could do much better and... you know it?


I also believe that certain individuals, those who can't control their use of alcohol or other drugs
Those who can't or won't? Nobody is forcing them and it isn't out of their hands past a certain point. After a while statistically speaking they pretty much can't. BUT they got to that point because they WOULDN'T. So society at large is supposed to feel bad and make exceptions for the truly retarded amongst us who cast off all personal responsibility? Generally speaking stupidity isn't worthy of pity but those with exterior motives guile us into thinking it is.

[SOG]

Portugal....Not super similiar to the US but last time I checked portugal hasn't fallen to the "zombie masses"

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Other than the fact that yes, we are human, Portugal massively differs politically, financially and socially not to mention a mass of other y's from the US.

For instance welfare works great in many other countries. But not the US. Why? Take those same reasons and apply.

The article has an alarming amount of stats but does not try to explain their rhyme or reason. For instance the stats that the US has more drug users than everyone else but why? Could it also be the money and central world focus of imports to the US? Does Portugal have the same attention and pressure? I could claim Portugal is technologically backwards because they don't have as many sophisticated electronic gadgets per person as the US. BUT, there is perfectly reasonable explanation for that. So the article is quick to point out statistical facts that lead you down a narrow path because they refuse to point out any reason behind those facts except to help their case.

Also Portugal claims lower drug use. But their statistics before were based on hard numbers provided by enforcement plus general poll. If it is no longer a crime then enforcement would no longer report any incidences which would no doubt effect the bottom % line?

What is very interesting in the article:

Drug use did not rise." However, he notes that Portugal is a small country and that the cyclical nature of drug epidemics — which tends to occur no matter what policies are in place — may account for the declines in heroin use and deaths.

The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."

So we have:
1. Drug epidemics come and go. Portugal does not know why it worked, only that it worked and the future is totally uncertain. Is drug use due to trends, the times or a variety of other factors.
2. The Cato institute actually thinks that a VERY small country that is entirely different to the US is an "empirical" model by which to practically follow as that is the basis of their organization.

[Rossdobby]

Okay, here is a question in the theoretical result of your statement. Says drugs were legalized just like booze and the whole nine yards right? But then what would the result be? More laws for consumption limits, more bureaucracy on the back end to deal with all these substances and even better, the host of "officially" unrecognized drugs that would crop up as an alternative to legal drugs only.

Also, if the pharmaceutical industry controls the prices and people become displeased, then the very same drugs would be sold illegally at lower prices and you would have drug dealers popping up all over the place yet again. Or what if regulations were put in place so you couldn't buy a lot of drugs thus not becoming a addict, but just a casual user? Of course people would once again use illegal drug dealers.

And on top of all that, what about the fight over which drugs are legal or not? Where do you draw the line? Which drugs make the "cut"? Can you imagine the politics in that battle dragging on year after year? Look at the mass host of drugs and imagine all the new drugs that would be legally cooked up by companies and the resulting special interest groups that would infect the system with bribes and the whole nine yards.

On top of all this you would have MUCH more exposure to the public mass since it is legal, publicly condoned, readily available, can be used at parties, maybe even public businesses as long as you have a designated driver, more overdoses, more bodily harm from misuse, more public intoxication incidences, the whole nine yards. Not to mention the public strain on addiction, help groups and the whole nine yards.

If I understand you correctly you are saying legalize the problem which lifts the burden off of LEO and society as a whole and let capitalism run with it. But with everything I mentioned, I think legalization would usher in an entirely different set of legal and public problems that would have us equally pained if not more in the long run albeit in a different way.

If this was an issue over weed, I really wouldn't care as much. But if we are talking about the whole mess of drugs out there, ouch. And as Two Sheds said the last time this came up, if drugs are legalized then I get to carry a mace and smash the heads of the zombie masses milling around... (Loose quote)

The problems you mention about LEO dealing with drugs are that of corruption, complacement and people not doing their jobs as they should. Public officials feeling they are "entitled" to so much more than they are given. In other words, politicians...

And just out of curiosity, what other countries legalize drugs including hard drugs and what is their population, political climate, ethnic majority etc? I'm tapped to find a similar working comparison to what is proposed?

But prohibition isn't working its simply costing your Gov't to much to fund operations to seize drug dealers and there drugs. Then lock them up and feed them and baby them so they dont go back out into public and start dealing again. For all that money you spend it really does nothing.

From 1986 to 2007, the DEA seized 1,383,383 kilograms of cocaine. That is over 3 million pounds or 1.3 billion grams. You'd think that with that much success in interdiction, that it would have had an incredible effect on price and availability (and this doesn't even include eradication efforts in source countries).
And yet, in the nearest comparable time period as estimated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, in the United States, from 1990 to 2005, the average street price of cocaine (adjusted for inflation) dropped from $284 per gram to $107 per gram, and there has been no long-term effect on availability.

Wow really effective.

[Mastermind]

These are all excellent considerations that need to be answered...and thanks,btw, you clearly put much thought into this -

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm not arguing or trying to be an ass...but, I'm going to just set down my thoughts on these points...right or wrong...just thought.

Okay, here is a question in the theoretical result of your statement. Says drugs were legalized just like booze and the whole nine yards right? But then what would the result be? More laws for consumption limits, more bureaucracy on the back end to deal with all these substances and even better, the host of "officially" unrecognized drugs that would crop up as an alternative to legal drugs only.

^We already suffer a tremendous bureaucratic punishment over illegal drugs...so, that's kind of a push. As for alternatives, I doubt anything man can make will be as cheap as what nature can make or better...just guessing on this.

Also, if the pharmaceutical industry controls the prices and people become displeased, then the very same drugs would be sold illegally at lower prices and you would have drug dealers popping up all over the place yet again. Or what if regulations were put in place so you couldn't buy a lot of drugs thus not becoming a addict, but just a casual user? Of course people would once again use illegal drug dealers.

^No, I have to disagree, here. The pricing would, of course, have to be carefully planned to prevent the gargantuan profits drug dealers now enjoy and as a result, fund entire armies with. 2nd, why would I (as a potential user) want to put my freedom at risk to go onto the black market to get my drugs, that may or may not be of high or guaranteed quality to save a few pennies...which would be all I could realize if the pricing was done in order to limit illicit drug dealing?

And on top of all that, what about the fight over which drugs are legal or not? Where do you draw the line? Which drugs make the "cut"? Can you imagine the politics in that battle dragging on year after year? Look at the mass host of drugs and imagine all the new drugs that would be legally cooked up by companies and the resulting special interest groups that would infect the system with bribes and the whole nine yards.

^You're probably right about the fight over what's legal and what's not...my idea is, ALL drugs should be legal or at least decriminalized...yep, from crack to heroine to cocaine to aspirin.

On top of all this you would have MUCH more exposure to the public mass since it is legal, publicly condoned, readily available, can be used at parties, maybe even public businesses as long as you have a designated driver, more overdoses, more bodily harm from misuse, more public intoxication incidences, the whole nine yards. Not to mention the public strain on addiction, help groups and the whole nine yards.

^Okay, if you watched the videos presented by Jdg Grey, you might see he was very clearly arguing the opposite of what you are claiming. And, we have clear examples of substances that are already controlled but readily accessible...like tobacco and alcohol...I can tell you, even with the horrific alcohol related injuries and deaths per annum, they are nothing in comparison to the murder for illicit drug turf, drugging robbing to get the huge money they need to support habits, murder due to mugging, home invasion...etc.

If I understand you correctly you are saying legalize the problem which lifts the burden off of LEO and society as a whole and let capitalism run with it. But with everything I mentioned, I think legalization would usher in an entirely different set of legal and public problems that would have us equally pained if not more in the long run albeit in a different way.

Well, you do understand me correctly...and yes, you are probably correct...there can be no doubt, the world supply of idiots would remain the same...we would have policing problems of a different nature. But, I suspect they would be far less than what we are dealing with now as we sink under the burden of this malignant tumor of drug lords and cop lords who want to perpetuate their endeavors.

If this was an issue over weed, I really wouldn't care as much. But if we are talking about the whole mess of drugs out there, ouch. And as Two Sheds said the last time this came up, if drugs are legalized then I get to carry a mace and smash the heads of the zombie masses milling around...

Oaky, I have to wonder on this point. First of all, if we legalize weed, that would probably resolve about 75% of our present illegal drug problems...so damn good start.

As for the other drugs of choice...I select Heroin as the least to cause problems. You have probably come in contact with a heroin user on a daily basis in some way or another and never knew it. Heroin use is not casually detectable. People on H are fully functional (so long as they are not over dosed)...they just don't feel pain the way we do. If there was a drug I would take if it were legal it is probably heroin. If it were legal, user ODs would likely be reduced due to enhanced quality of the drugs, cleaner needles, etc. Aids and other needle infectious diseases reduced...so on.
Crack, well, that's a nasty one, but people high on crack are usually placid. Crack is about a hundred times more addictive than nicotine, but not nearly as poisonous. Crack highs last for varying lengths of time...but are usually very short compared to H.
Meth, that is truly destructive; same as angle dust. If we criminalized a single drug it should be meth..or at least set a side hospitals or care centers or user reservations for meth heads...they really are in a hell of a mess using that crap...but, the biggest danger from meth is the illicit meth labs....extroadinay damage happens daily from this crap.

The problems you mention about LEO dealing with drugs are that of corruption, complacement and people not doing their jobs as they should. Public officials feeling they are "entitled" to so much more than they are given. In other words, politicians...

^Probably be the same with drugs legalized, but they would prostitute themselves for less cash at a time than they do now. Politicians are unfortunately with us to the bitter end of our time.

And just out of curiosity, what other countries legalize drugs including hard drugs and what is their population, political climate, ethnic majority etc? I'm tapped to find a similar working comparison to what is proposed?[/QUOTE]

^Well, some have had pretty good success on a limited scale...the Netherlands comes to mind. Although, under increasing international pressures, they are once again criminalizing them in spite of their fairly good results. Some southern hemisphere nations have practically legalized or at least "accepted" MJ...just far too costly to police as opposed to the harder substances. But, you are right, except for the Netherlands, nations are not in the practice of manufacturing and issuing presently illegal drugs to their citizens...se, it would be a rather bold experiment.

One thing is certain, the so-called "War On Drugs" as we are practicing it today simply is not working...in fact, it is now destroying the very fabric of society it was originally intended to save...so, undeniably, we better be coming up with some new ideas on how to deal with it.

[Fat Lazy American]

As for the other drugs of choice...I select Heroin as the least to cause problems. You have probably come in contact with a heroin user on a daily basis in some way or another and never knew it. Heroin use is not casually detectable. People on H are fully functional (so long as they are not over dosed)...they just don't feel pain the way we do. If there was a drug I would take if it were legal it is probably heroin. If it were legal, user ODs would likely be reduced due to enhanced quality of the drugs, cleaner needles, etc. Aids and other needle infectious diseases reduced...so on.
Crack, well, that's a nasty one, but people high on crack are usually placid. Crack is about a hundred times more addictive than nicotine, but not nearly as poisonous. Crack highs last for varying lengths of time...but are usually very short compared to H.
Meth, that is truly destructive; same as angle dust. If we criminalized a single drug it should be meth..or at least set a side hospitals or care centers or user reservations for meth heads...they really are in a hell of a mess using that crap...but, the biggest danger from meth is the illicit meth labs....extroadinay damage happens daily from this crap.


I don't know if I agree with your assessment here, on multiple fronts. Frankly, I'm sure it's colored by the fact that you live in Nevada.

Meth is, to be frank, more than a bit overhyped. It's not really any more or less addictive than cocaine given similar administration routes. And it's certainly less addictive than heroin. The risk of acute toxicity is lower than it is for cocaine (which in turn is less risky than heroin.) It's among the worst in terms of long term toxicity, though.

In addition, "street purity" as a cause of overdose is also probably overemphasized. People die from prescription opioid overdose all the time -- it's actually more frequent than heroin overdose death. And a lot of people who die of heroin overdoses have a damned good idea how potent what they have is.

(And that's just for prescription opioid ODs classified as such. The reality of suicide by opioid in terminally ill patients is something that's almost impossible to quantify.)

Also, people high on crack aren't placid in the least.

[Mastermind]

^Hmmm, perhaps we disagree in details, but agree in principle.

Based on my experience, when Crack heads are left to their own devices, have little pressure from the "catchers" they tended to be pretty mellow people. The high is so intense, they seemed to me to just kind of "melt" in place for a while. The trouble as I see it with crack is, it is so highly addictive, they will do just about anything for their next fix. Pretty damn dangerous to law abiding people who have the resources the crack addicts need to get their next high in a criminalized environment.

[Lancero]

And just out of curiosity, what other countries legalize drugs including hard drugs and what is their population, political climate, ethnic majority etc? I'm tapped to find a similar working comparison to what is proposed?


Portugal....Not super similiar to the US but last time I checked portugal hasn't fallen to the "zombie masses"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html


You're starting idea is wrong. Drug use isn't legal here. Decriminalization ≠ Legalization



Also Portugal claims lower drug use. But their statistics before were based on hard numbers provided by enforcement plus general poll. If it is no longer a crime then enforcement would no longer report any incidences which would no doubt effect the bottom % line?

LE still make a case against anyone caught using or carrying (personal consumption quantities) drugs. So, the stats have the same relevance and accuracy as before.

The difference is that those cases have no longer a penal penalty. I.e., they go the drug deterrence comissions: where those caught might have to do rehab, pay some fines, do community work...

The focus here wasn't to deal with a police issue, but a health one. And believe me, it's working both ways (the courts have been reliefed and drug related decieses have droped).

[Laconian]

So by legalizing crack, we really gain no benefit other than tax revenue and the budding legal cocaine trade? That's not really enough for me. Weed? Maybe the most workable of the suggestions, but I'm not convinced that on a national level, a well-regulated pot industry would survive the inevitable number of suits/torts that would come out of it. (Because sure as sh!t, the folks screaming for legal weed are gonna be the same folks screaming for somebody's head - and wallet- the first time pot is the culprit of something going pear-shaped).

I also am tired of the term "War on Drugs" It's not a war, it is criminal enforcement, that's it. We'd be killing a whole bunch of people if this was a war and we're not.

[Aerosoul]

So by legalizing crack, we really gain no benefit other than tax revenue and the budding legal cocaine trade? That's not really enough for me. Weed? Maybe the most workable of the suggestions, but I'm not convinced that on a national level, a well-regulated pot industry would survive the inevitable number of suits/torts that would come out of it. (Because sure as sh!t, the folks screaming for legal weed are gonna be the same folks screaming for somebody's head - and wallet- the first time pot is the culprit of something going pear-shaped).

I also am tired of the term "War on Drugs" It's not a war, it is criminal enforcement, that's it. We'd be killing a whole bunch of people if this was a war and we're not.

I'm not in support of legalizing anything other than marijuana, and I think that's the way most people feel. It's really more about the way the prohibition has utterly failed and the resources spent fighting it.

The term is a bit silly but we have Richard Nixon to thank for that. It stuck and will always be around.

[Mastermind]

So by legalizing crack, we really gain no benefit other than tax revenue and the budding legal cocaine trade? That's not really enough for me. Weed? Maybe the most workable of the suggestions, but I'm not convinced that on a national level, a well-regulated pot industry would survive the inevitable number of suits/torts that would come out of it. (Because sure as sh!t, the folks screaming for legal weed are gonna be the same folks screaming for somebody's head - and wallet- the first time pot is the culprit of something going pear-shaped).

I also am tired of the term "War on Drugs" It's not a war, it is criminal enforcement, that's it. We'd be killing a whole bunch of people if this was a war and we're not.
^^I fully agree. I am sick of the entire buffet of "War on XXX" it's nothing but an attention getting device that is just a political tool...it is an absurdity.

Nothing should be called "War" unless there is a formal declaration on it.