Former top Yank cop says drug war a flop

[Black Dog]

The U.S.'s war on drugs is a losing battle and it's time to surrender, according to a former Seattle police chief.

Speaking at Vancouver's Fraser Institute yesterday, Norman Stamper shocked some and affirmed others with his theory that legalizing and "rigorously regulating" now-illicit drugs such as heroin, crystal meth and crack cocaine is more productive and socially responsible than American-style prohibition.

Makes sense: most criminal behaviours (other than crimes like possession and traffiking which are, by definition, drug crimes) are consequenses of drug prohibition, not of the drugs themselves. To praphrase the old saw about gun control: drugs dont kill people, people kill people.

[Hicksey]

Having seen people torn down to their core, within an inch of their lives, I'd rather see it be prohibited. I think that's the greatest good. Considering liberals are usually the type to want to protect us from ourselves, I'm surprised they're taking this view.

But if it is to happen, drug users and other people with addictions or ailments self-inflicted should be required to pay a co-pay on their government health insurance. The co-pay on medical attention due to the ailment/addiction should be a percentage up to 10% depending on the severity of the resulting effects on their health. Cigarette/alcohol abuse would qualify too. I don't think everyone else should have to pay for your bad habits. But still basic preventative health care and life-saving emergency medicine should still be government paid.

I'm not saying we should leave these people out in the cold, but there should be some level of responsibility for one's actions. We simply cannot afford to run such a consequence free society. Eventually those who do not do these things will tire of paying the bill for those who do.

[Black Dog]

Having seen people torn down to their core, within an inch of their lives, I'd rather see it be prohibited. I think that's the greatest good. Considering liberals are usually the type to want to protect us from ourselves, I'm surprised they're taking this view.

The Fraser Institute is liberal?

But if it is to happen, drug users and other people with addictions or ailments self-inflicted should be required to pay a co-pay on their government health insurance. The co-pay on medical attention due to the ailment/addiction should be a percentage up to 10% depending on the severity of the resulting effects on their health. Cigarette/alcohol abuse would qualify too. I don't think everyone else should have to pay for your bad habits. But still basic preventative health care and life-saving emergency medicine should still be government paid.

I'm not really sure how one would quantify that or even determine what particular ailment is a result of drug addiction (other than the obvious, like o.d.'s)

I'm not saying we should leave these people out in the cold, but there should be some level of responsibility for one's actions. We simply cannot afford to run such a consequence free society. Eventually those who do not do these things will tire of paying the bill for those who do.

I'm not sure where you'd draw the line. Why not apply the same principle to bad drivers and unhealthy eaters? I think the assumption here that drugs tehmselves wreck people is flawed: they can, but it's not inevitable.

[Hicksey]

Having seen people torn down to their core, within an inch of their lives, I'd rather see it be prohibited. I think that's the greatest good. Considering liberals are usually the type to want to protect us from ourselves, I'm surprised they're taking this view.

The Fraser Institute is liberal?

But if it is to happen, drug users and other people with addictions or ailments self-inflicted should be required to pay a co-pay on their government health insurance. The co-pay on medical attention due to the ailment/addiction should be a percentage up to 10% depending on the severity of the resulting effects on their health. Cigarette/alcohol abuse would qualify too. I don't think everyone else should have to pay for your bad habits. But still basic preventative health care and life-saving emergency medicine should still be government paid.

I'm not really sure how one would quantify that or even determine what particular ailment is a result of drug addiction (other than the obvious, like o.d.'s)

I'm not saying we should leave these people out in the cold, but there should be some level of responsibility for one's actions. We simply cannot afford to run such a consequence free society. Eventually those who do not do these things will tire of paying the bill for those who do.

I'm not sure where you'd draw the line. Why not apply the same principle to bad drivers and unhealthy eaters? I think the assumption here that drugs tehmselves wreck people is flawed: they can, but it's not inevitable.

Well, obesity is a self-inflicted ailment and as such would be included. And to be honest, that affects me.

I've seen marijauna lead to other highly addictive drugs in real life situations. My wife's cousin got out of hospital after nearly dying just recently. I've seen the addictive nature of drugs and I've done research on how that damages the neural circuits that control risk/reward decisions to the point that long term risks no longer register, only the short term gain. Once a person gets to the point of addiction they are truly sick and cannot make decisions in their best interest. My wife's cousin tried to jump off a balcony into a pool that didn't exist while high on cocaine.

While I don't condone the conscious decisions that lead to addiction, the affects of addiction are devastating and costly(sincere effort and time, not just money) to reverse. While I agree to a point that as long as the demand exists, the drug war will never be won--we owe it to our citizens to protect them from such things IMO.

[August1991]

Makes sense: most criminal behaviours (other than crimes like possession and traffiking which are, by definition, drug crimes) are consequenses of drug prohibition, not of the drugs themselves. To praphrase the old saw about gun control: drugs dont kill people, people kill people.

The two high-profile crimes in Canada in the past week - 8 guys killed in Ontario and a BC kidnapping - are ultimately related to illegal drugs.

Motorcycle gangs exist primarily to arbitrate drug deals since the normal legal system won't handle such contracts.

The Vancouver kidnapping was connected to grow-ops.

Going back a bit, the shooting in Toronto after Christmas involved urban gangs - another creation of the illegal drugs trade.

Or how about the nut who shot and killed four RCMP officers near Edmonton? Another drug trader.

I think something like one third of all prisoners in the US are in prison because of drug convictions - how many are there because of non-drug convictions related to the illegal drug business?

----

There is a perception that bad people will always be with us, regardless. It is up to the good people to try to stop them. That perception is nonsense.

In the 1920s, alcohol was prohibited and the "mafia" was born. Did many bad people suddenly arrive? No, alcohol was prohibited.

I don't want to turn this into a legalize-marijuana rant. I just think that we should compare the costs of legalization against the costs of criminalization.

Having seen people torn down to their core, within an inch of their lives, I'd rather see it be prohibited. I think that's the greatest good. Considering liberals are usually the type to want to protect us from ourselves, I'm surprised they're taking this view.

Good point. This is what I mean as a comparison.

[Black Dog]

I've seen marijauna lead to other highly addictive drugs in real life situations. My wife's cousin got out of hospital after nearly dying just recently. I've seen the addictive nature of drugs and I've done research on how that damages the neural circuits that control risk/reward decisions to the point that long term risks no longer register, only the short term gain. Once a person gets to the point of addiction they are truly sick and cannot make decisions in their best interest. My wife's cousin tried to jump off a balcony into a pool that didn't exist while high on cocaine.

But the issue here isn't so much the damage that some drugs can cause, but how we, as society deal with them. The problem with prohibition is that it necessarily must contain a punitive element: that is, if drugs are prohibited then individuals must be punished for the use and/or production and distribution. That's the approach that's got us here today.

What's being suggested here is a strategy whereby we try to reduce the harm by turning the focus to treating the addicition, not criminalizing it.

Harm Reduction

[geoffrey]

If the government is providing drugs... which I assume is what would happen like liquour in all provinces except Alberta... and providing the treatment, we are at the VLT issue which was discussed in another thread.

Can the government make money off an addictive substance and then offer treatment to these same people morally? Is there no conflict of interest?

Do as I say, not as I do?

[Nocrap]

If the government is providing drugs... which I assume is what would happen like liquour in all provinces except Alberta... and providing the treatment, we are at the VLT issue which was discussed in another thread.

Can the government make money off an addictive substance and then offer treatment to these same people morally? Is there no conflict of interest?

Do as I say, not as I do?

The Fraser Institute is liberal?

That one blew me away too.

However, I agree with August1991. We need to remove the criminal element. The effects of any addiction are devastating, whether they are legal substances or not.

Insurance companies raise premiums for people with dangerous lifestyles and offer discounts to non-smokers and abstainers, so adding drug addicts to the list would not be morally wrong, but justifiable.

Whether our public heathcare system should treat them differently though is another matter. Addiction is an illness and should be given the same consideration as any illness.

[fixer1]

I laugh at the whole idea of "The War on Drugs". If it was really a war, they could win it, but it would have severe consequences. For example if they were serious about this, they could simply bring in a war measures act that made it mandatory for everyone to take weekly drug tests. Anyone caught 3 times for using will be considered a prisoner of war and detained. Yes that is way over the top, but so is a real war. The push to reduce drug use would be a more appropriate description of what they are doing. In a real war anyone caught suppling the enemy was put to death. But we do not put drug pushers to death, but rather incarcerate them at publics expense. So yes as far as the War on drugs goes it always was and still is a flop. Not that it can not be won. It is just that it never was a true war in the first place.

[Hydraboss]

The whole "war on drugs" is a flop. We all know that. As fixer said, if you want to win a war, you have to fight it like a war. Go to Turkey and try to buy drugs. What? Can't find any within the country's borders? Amazing!

That may have something to do with the fact that convicted dealers are put to death.

We (North Americans) will never win this war because we are not prepared to fight it as it must be fought. Bring back the death penalty in Canada, and apply it to crimes that deserve it. Pedophilia, drug trafficking, murder, etc.. and I guarantee that the incident rate will drop dramatically. The hardcore gangs will continue, but the fifteen year old dealer will think twice before selling. But this country will never do this because we treat these crimes as "diseases". Drug addiction is not a disease. Cancer is a disease. Too stupid to stay off meth? Committ a crime? Go to jail. Deal drugs and kill kids? Go to hell (and we'll pay your ticket). Just got to rape kids? Bye, bye bastard. There, now you're rehabilitated. Feel better?

The day we as a society decide to put the rights and lives of ordinary citizens above the scum, we can proceed with this "war". Until then, throw the cash into General Revenue, legalize everything, and close the jails. Might as well as long as we have no intention of meting out punishment.

[Argus]

I've seen marijauna lead to other highly addictive drugs in real life situations. My wife's cousin got out of hospital after nearly dying just recently. I've seen the addictive nature of drugs and I've done research on how that damages the neural circuits that control risk/reward decisions to the point that long term risks no longer register, only the short term gain. Once a person gets to the point of addiction they are truly sick and cannot make decisions in their best interest. My wife's cousin tried to jump off a balcony into a pool that didn't exist while high on cocaine.

But the issue here isn't so much the damage that some drugs can cause, but how we, as society deal with them. The problem with prohibition is that it necessarily must contain a punitive element: that is, if drugs are prohibited then individuals must be punished for the use and/or production and distribution. That's the approach that's got us here today.

Well, if you want to be more precise, soft enforcement and an enlightened judicial system is what got us here today. If you enforced a law that said anyone caught with a joint would be immediately stood up against a wall and shot people would stop using grass. Most people would stop selling it, too. Same goes for heroin and coke. Oh there'd still be some available, at a very, very high price. But most people would simply not be able to afford it.

I agree, however, that we should be putting much, much more effort into drug awareness and treatment.

I also think that we should lock up dealers and smugglers for life. Build an industrial prison and make them work ten hour days in a factory for their food and board.

[Argus]

The whole "war on drugs" is a flop. We all know that. As fixer said, if you want to win a war, you have to fight it like a war. Go to Turkey and try to buy drugs. What? Can't find any within the country's borders? Amazing!

That may have something to do with the fact that convicted dealers are put to death.

We (North Americans) will never win this war because we are not prepared to fight it as it must be fought. Bring back the death penalty in Canada, and apply it to crimes that deserve it.

I am leery of the death penalty given the notorious incompetence of the legal system. I would be much more comfortable with an industrial prison which would pay the cost of incarcerating people for life.

[Argus]

If the government is providing drugs... which I assume is what would happen like liquour in all provinces except Alberta... and providing the treatment, we are at the VLT issue which was discussed in another thread.

Can the government make money off an addictive substance and then offer treatment to these same people morally? Is there no conflict of interest?

Do as I say, not as I do?

We also have to consider the moral implicatons of supplying a deadly, addictive substance like crack which the government knows will destroy anyone taking it within a year.

Not to mention what this would do to border enforcement. If hard drugs are freely available in Canada the US would ramp up border enforcement to the point you'd have to take a drug test and strip naked to get across the border into the US. What that would do to tourism, not to mention trade across the border doesn't bear thinking about.

[geoffrey]

If the government is providing drugs... which I assume is what would happen like liquour in all provinces except Alberta... and providing the treatment, we are at the VLT issue which was discussed in another thread.

Can the government make money off an addictive substance and then offer treatment to these same people morally? Is there no conflict of interest?

Do as I say, not as I do?

We also have to consider the moral implicatons of supplying a deadly, addictive substance like crack which the government knows will destroy anyone taking it within a year.

Not to mention what this would do to border enforcement. If hard drugs are freely available in Canada the US would ramp up border enforcement to the point you'd have to take a drug test and strip naked to get across the border into the US. What that would do to tourism, not to mention trade across the border doesn't bear thinking about.

The first point is the one I'm mostly stuck on with legalisation. How can the government be ok with providing to the population a substance that is harmful. Agreed they do it with alcohol (except in Alberta), but I'm against that whole concept of government provision as well.

It's a massive conflict of interest and moral crisis when a government gives openly to its people a substance that will harm them greatly.

[Naci Sey]

Well, obesity is a self-inflicted ailment and as such would be included. And to be honest, that affects me.

With respect, Hicksey, a good deal of obesity today is showing up in the lowest income group. The deeper the poverty, the higher the incidence of obesity. It's not easy feeding oneself or one's children healthy foods if virtually all your income is going to housing. So people turn to the 'welfare diet' (whether or not they are on welfare). That diet is chockful of carbohydrates. This is also why we're seeing an increased incidence of Type II Diabetes.

While I don't condone the conscious decisions that lead to addiction, the affects of addiction are devastating and costly....

A great many people with subtance addiction were driven to it by despair and circumstances beyond their control. E.g., young people who escape to the streets from abusive homes are ripe to be caught by the wrong crowd and fed drugs to get them hooked.

Speaking at Vancouver's Fraser Institute yesterday, Norman Stamper shocked some and affirmed others with his theory that legalizing and "rigorously regulating" now-illicit drugs such as heroin, crystal meth and crack cocaine is more productive and socially responsible than American-style prohibition.

That he spoke in Vancouver was appropriate. They're experiment in the Downtown Eastside is working: fewer deaths from overdose, more people being assisted off drugs, less local criminal behaviour.

I say decriminalize. Decades of research support this and decades of law enforcement say that the war on drugs isn't working. Let's go with what works.

[PocketRocket]

We (North Americans) will never win this war because we are not prepared to fight it as it must be fought. Bring back the death penalty in Canada, and apply it to crimes that deserve it. ...... drug trafficking ........

I have two problems with this; Who decides which crimes "deserve" the death sentence???

And, since you obviously consider drug trafficking to be among those "deserving" "crimes", then which drugs are worthy of capital punishment??? Coke??? Meth??? Pot???

Alcohol???

Tobacco???

Hell, let's just head on up to Capital Hill and lynch the entire government!!!

Sorry, HB, your measures are more than a bit too draconian for my tastes

But, if you REALLY believe in this type of law and law enforcement, I understand Turkey is opening its borders to immigration

As for "The War On Drugs", well, I believe that America and Americans have a deep attachment to the word "WAR".

Everything is a "war".

The "war" on poverty.

The "war" on terrorism.

The "war" on iiliteracy. (On rereading, I noticed the spelling error. Left it alone. Not sure if it's for the sake of irony, or just an excuse for a bad pun, but it's certainly in the right sentence)

South of our border, if you want to get people's attention, and get them focussed on a goal, you gotta get that "W" word in there somewhere.

[geoffrey]

I say decriminalize. Decades of research support this and decades of law enforcement say that the war on drugs isn't working. Let's go with what works.

The war on murder, fraud and gun crimes aren't working either.

Lets legalise it, and tax it!

[uOttawaMan]

The war on the inappropriate and overused word "war" appears to be failing as well.

[August1991]

The war on the inappropriate and overused word "war" appears to be failing as well.

I agree. I suggest we go nuclear on the use of the word war when discussing drugs, crime, world hunger, teen pregnancy and violence in music lyrics.

[Slavik44]

I say decriminalize. Decades of research support this and decades of law enforcement say that the war on drugs isn't working. Let's go with what works.

The war on murder, fraud and gun crimes aren't working either.

Lets legalise it, and tax it!

Please give it a rest, the question is not to look solely at wether or not the war is being won, but wether or not it is worth it. The fact remains that in America they spend more on the war on drugs then they do on the war to educate American people. The biggest problem with the war on drugs is that it can be counter productive. Personally I would change the focus of the war, to reducing the deaths the enemy causes...If the enemy doesn't kill anyone then we have achieved our goal. Everyone talks about a war where no one shows up, but what about a war where no one dies. Perhaps there is a bloody noes and a couple broken bones, but in the long run the war really isn't that bad. We should stop focusing primarily on making drugs harder to get, something we have resoundingly failed at, and start focusing on making them less appealing, less addictive, and less harmfull. Each and everyone of which can be achieved to an extent, a number of studies indicate that drug addiction is best overcome when their is a strong support based environment, a number of studies seem to indicate that drug use generally arises when people are in a poor environment( I don't mean welath wise but in general, poor), and that under circumstances, when drug users are not marginalised as much as they are, they can lead a more productive life, then that of a street junkie and ten cent whore. I feel that the current drug policy has been ineffective and counter productive and if your goal is to do something about drugs the policy should shift to focusing on the people. We waste billions focusing and failing on the drugs, lets spend 40 billion a year to make drugs less harmfull, people less likely to use drugs, and people who use drugs more productive. Instead of continuing to misplace 40 billion a year in a misguided war effort. Most of that 40 billion is spent combating Pot. Which to me would be like if America spent almost all of its defense money in order to defend itself against a Canadian invasion. I think we need to realise that our "drugs are bad" morals are killing people... The question shouldn't be wether or not Drugs are good, instead the question must be how many deaths is maintaining our position on the moral high road truly worth? And if we allow people to die by maintaining this position is it really the moral position?

[Hicksey]

Well, obesity is a self-inflicted ailment and as such would be included. And to be honest, that affects me.

With respect, Hicksey, a good deal of obesity today is showing up in the lowest income group. The deeper the poverty, the higher the incidence of obesity. It's not easy feeding oneself or one's children healthy foods if virtually all your income is going to housing. So people turn to the 'welfare diet' (whether or not they are on welfare). That diet is chockful of carbohydrates. This is also why we're seeing an increased incidence of Type II Diabetes.

While I don't condone the conscious decisions that lead to addiction, the affects of addiction are devastating and costly....

A great many people with subtance addiction were driven to it by despair and circumstances beyond their control. E.g., young people who escape to the streets from abusive homes are ripe to be caught by the wrong crowd and fed drugs to get them hooked.

Speaking at Vancouver's Fraser Institute yesterday, Norman Stamper shocked some and affirmed others with his theory that legalizing and "rigorously regulating" now-illicit drugs such as heroin, crystal meth and crack cocaine is more productive and socially responsible than American-style prohibition.

That he spoke in Vancouver was appropriate. They're experiment in the Downtown Eastside is working: fewer deaths from overdose, more people being assisted off drugs, less local criminal behaviour.

I say decriminalize. Decades of research support this and decades of law enforcement say that the war on drugs isn't working. Let's go with what works.

The things you list are just excuses people tell themselves to justify the behavior in their own minds. They are not even good excuses. I used to think that there were other causes to my obesity, like my completely inactive thyroid for instance. But if you look around many people with the same problem as I have are healthy and a relatively 'normal' size. It takes an honest look within (not easy ... trust me) to see what really happened. It started as soon as i was out on my own. My meal choices were what I wanted to eat instead of what was good for me. I did this to myself through my choices in life. It doesn't matter what other lies I want to tell myself, I did this. And with congenital hypothryoidism (not just underactive, inactive from birth) I have what a lot of people would consider a good excuse. But what most people don't know is that with proper treatment (ie. hormone replacement/control) I should live as any other person--weight gain/loss included. You can blame poverty all you want, but I guarantee you each of these people know in their core that its not true. And with an honest look within they can even tell you why. That people aren't responsible for their obesity is nonsense. In my battle today, I am making much better decisions and making slow progress because of it. With help I've learned how to make good food choices. Because of how I programmed myself to eat before they are hard, but I still make the right decision. Without consequences or responsibility for one's actions how would they ever know to turn it around? I was 350 pounds because I made bad decisions. I am 335 and losing now because I saw the consequences of my actions and those if I continued as I was. And part of that was taking responsibility for my own well-being instead of making excuses as to why I shouldn't have to.

Is this supposed to make it okay to become a drug addict or a criminal? Not in my books. I've never been lucky enough to find easy street on the map, but that doesn't justify throwing my hands up in futility and giving in. If you do, that's still a bad decision you're responsible for. If not to anyone else, to yourself. Any idiot over 16 knows right from wrong. If they choose drugs and crime they do it knowing it is wrong. In Canada more than many countries there is no excuse. There is no necessity to go that way. There are enough social nets to house you, feed you, pay your bills and teach you a marketable skill so you can sustain yourself. I've used all of them on my way to where I am today. I am not as conservative as some when it comes to social programs. There are some I have seen are worthy first hand. I had only a high school diploma to my name at 18 when I left--no place to live, no job ... nothing. I had no special life skills that anyone else doesn't have and I made it. If I can--anyone can. Make all the excuses you want for them, it only hurts them. Until they come to grips with the consequences of their actions, take responsibility for them and change them nothing will happen.

I wonder what surprises a consequence-free society might bring us.

There has to be a line that is drawn in the sand that we cannot go beyond. Drug users that abuse are a danger to the rest of us. When did the safety of society as a whole become less important than a person's right to systematically destroy themselves.

[betsy]

"A heroin addict needs his or her heroin and I think it's cruel to deprive them from that heroin ... it's like depriving a diabetic of insulin," said Stamper, who argued a regulated-government model of drug production and distribution with "hard-to-get and easy-to-lose permits" is a "just, reasonable and compassionate solution to the drug problem."

"The beautiful thing about Canada is that people are talking about it and saying the decades-old way of doing things isn't working.”

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/2006/04/12/1530775-sun.html

Is this guy on heroin or what?

He's talking about turning us into a society of lotus-eaters.

"Hard-to-get-and-easy-to-lose-permits" my foot. Haven't you heard of blackmarkets?

Wel, what about coke? Isn't it cruel to deprive crack addicts of their fix?

ow would you like a surgeon to snort or shoot up just before doing a bypass?

Or a nurse fixing herself a cocktail just before doing her rounds of administering medications to patients?

An accountant doing your taxes? Or your lawyer trying to get you off the hook?

Or an armed cop cruising the streets?

If someone over-dosed, or the brains get fried...does the government get sued????

So what else is next on the agenda after this ridiculous bright idea gets approved?

Cruel to deprive pedophiles access to their sexual preference? Does the government gets into regulated child porn and child prostitution? With hard to get and easy to lose permits?

Get these kids in group homes to work for their keep?

Why oh why do we (Canadians) have this reputation that all anyone have to do is keep whacking and we'll eventually capitulate?

We should watch other countries on how they deal with drug problems. Singapore, for example.

Those with harsh punishments seem to have it under control. I say, concentrate on the dealers...whether they be small-time dealers or big-time.

[betsy]

I say decriminalize. Decades of research support this and decades of law enforcement say that the war on drugs isn't working. Let's go with what works.

The war on murder, fraud and gun crimes aren't working either.

Lets legalise it, and tax it!

You forgot to add rape.

[betsy]

The way I see it, drug dealers are the worse for they destroy lives en masse. It places a huge burden on everyone, including those who are not addicted. Think of the youth whose life is destroyed before it even got started.

Think of the families having to deal with an addict in their midst. Normalcy is gone. Everything under lock and key...and usually that doesn't deter the addict either who's desperate to turn anything into cash.

Think of society victimized by these addicts. The beaten up elderlies, the murdered cab driver etc..,

Without drug pushers, there wouldn't be easy access to these drugs.

ANY DRUGS that causes such kinds of powerful addiction that causes one to commit crime.

Drug dealing deserves death penalty. And for once I would even go as far as recommending it be through "barbaric" means and made public....good old-fashion hanging or chair....whichever cost less for the tax-payers.

[betsy]

Btw, how does this cop address the following situations as a result of his brilliant idea?

Who takes care of the children of stoned parents?

Who takes care of the families of stoned bread-winner who had lost a job...or decided not to bother with a job?

Eventually, an addict will lose inclination to get up to work...so eventually, all drug addicts will found their way towards more social assistance. Is welfare enough?

Enough to cover the endless supply of this addiction?

And you know what they say, a child who grows up in this environment is most likely to end up the same....

So what happens if a good chunk of society (and steadily increasing) is not productive?

How can we possibly afford all these?

Just curious, is this cop a democrat???