no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Category Archives: Drug War Rants

Another Isolated Incident

July 14th, 2008

[Edit: please see Errors & Omissions #1 – the source article from Yahoo! refers to a non-lethal June incident,although there was a lethal taser-related incident in Houston on or about July 14, 2008.]

 

Another death by taser (the “non-lethal” taser) in Houston.

The burglarly suspect attempted to ditch his crack-pipe while fleeing the police. That move proved fatal, as the officers mistook the man’s reaching into his pocket as a hostile maneuver. Particularly disturbing are the reader comments in response to the incident:

LOL. What an ####! He got what he deserved

Yeah, it’s fucking hilarious when someone’s addiction drives them to crime, and ultimately death. Hilarious.

GREAT job to the resident and the officer!!! “Don’t taze me bro”
ZAPP!!!! Heh heh

Mmmmhmm. Killing someone over car-audio equipment is “GREAT” and commendable. One wonders whether these hero-worshippers would be as willing to take a man’s life over a car stereo.

Let’s review some basic principles of law: If a man breaks in to my house, but upon seeing my bedroom light turn on, flees back out the window, and I follow him down the street and shoot him in the back, I’d probably be charged with murder. Why? Because the moment he flees, there is no longer a conceivable threat to my life, sufficient to justify the use of lethal force—and that’s what we’re talking about here (for the record and in the interest of full disclosure, some of you may note that I’ve changed my tune with regards to tasers).

There’s a lot of things going on behind the scenes in this particular story; let’s summarize:

Government manipulation and interference in the market for certain plant extracts and derivatives has severely distorted the prices and availability of same. This interference drives a small subset of users to criminal activity to support an addiction which is exacerbated by a market full of unaccountable purveyors, ineffective or counter-effective policies regarding use and/or abuse, and treatment programs for the users. That this suspect was presumably a drug addict probably weighed heavily on his decision to burglarize cars in the middle of the night, most well-adjusted non-addicts don’t engage in this sort of behavior. Ever. Mere possession of a crack-pipe is often sufficient to justify additional charges against a suspect. Being an addict he had with him his pipe, because well, that’s what addicts do. He probably wasn’t going to outrun the police, so he tried to ditch his pipe. For this, he was ultimately killed.

Apologists will say things like, “Well, the police couldn’t have known that he was reaching for a pipe, and not a gun.”

Of course they “couldn’t have known” what the suspect was reaching for, point conceded. But that’s the problem. Law enforcement agents routinely and intentionally place themselves in circumstances where lack of adequate information is considered sufficient justification for what would otherwise be considered murder.

Reams of prohibitionary legislation and draconian punishments for drug-abuse only make matters worse.

Susan LeFevre: Comments on Comments #15

May 8th, 2008

Gyakusetsu comments via Google Reader’s “shared items”, on Susan LeFevre: Retribution or Rehabilitation

Good post about restitution, rehabilitation, and retribution. I would add “reconciliation” as another important “r”-word, but like most of the others (save retribution) we fail at it as well.

One good way to spot a law that makes criminals about of people who have done nothing immoral, is to ask “who is the victim” or “who is owed retribution?” If you can’t easily point to that person (or persons or people), then it’s likely it really shouldn’t be a crime at all.

The idea of “reconciliation” was on the tip of my toungue, but I couldn’t solidify it, and I couldn’t think of any more “R” words when I was writing that post. Also, I’m long-winded enough as it is! If we think about justice in the context of setting things right for those who have been wronged, the several parties must come to an accord. Reconciliation, in the sense of absolution, an admission of guilt or an act of contrition, requires the offended party (IMO) to accept the apology, per se, and although this might be properly ethical, I’m not sure it’s necessary for the victim to forgive the offender; only that the victim be barred from pursuing further damages after an accord has been reached.

+++

Noting that rehabilitation is the proper role of a penal system, Dan Z who works for a correctional facility, comments on the same post:

Working now in the corrections field I can see where the retribution angle takes precedence over what should be the true goal, rehabilitation. Much of the system is petty and arbitrary with the emphasis being on punishing people for actions that they committed rather than teaching them new behaviors and rehabilitating them so they do not do the same thing…

From what I have seen so far and this is working with youth, not adult corrections, the people in the system learn more diverse negative behavior and actions while in the system than they ever would have learned outside of it. It is an indictment of the system that the recidivism rate for most prisons is so high.

Point well-taken. Aside from a well-document history of abuse and negligence, it is often said that Prisons are the functional equivalent of “College for Criminals,” because it puts them in close contact with many who have no regard for the rights of others. In this environment, they are able to trade tricks of the trade, and far from rehabilitation, hone their skills as criminals.

I’ve also always found it interesting that black markets can function within a prison’s walls! If keeping known scofflaws under lock and key is unable to prevent the drug trade among them and with the outside world, the war on drugs is an incontestibly abysmal failure.

+++
anna leyenaar, a LeFevre supporter links to the Free Susan Lefevre website, and comments:

To support Marie and sign a one minute petition, please go to freesusanlefevre.com

She needs your help! Your vote counts!

I acknowledge the petition, but I am as certain of the uselessness of online petitions like this, as I am certain of anything. The best thing you can do, is to raise awareness of the fundamental immorality of the war on drugs, and awareness of LeFevre’s unique situation.

Medical Marijuana in Michigan

April 29th, 2008

Some people want to legalize medical marijuana in Michigan. This is counterproductive, for a number of reasons:

U.S. law classifies marijuana, like heroin and LSD, as a Schedule I controlled substance. That means it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.

Of course, “accepted medical use” is defined by legislators who are neither doctors or patients in chronic pain, based on bogus medical studies funded by the government, through public universities and probably in cahoots with Big Pharma.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration regards medical marijuana users, even in states that have approved its use, as lawbreakers. And in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws approving medical marijuana don’t bring with them immunity from federal prosecution.

Sometimes this sort of legalization ends up in limbo for a while, since the legislators don’t know what constitutes a 60-day supply. Sometims the Feds raid cooperatives inhabited by octogenarian cancer patients. In otherplaces, some patients are finding it difficult to receive life-saving organ transplants because of the belief among some medical professionals, that marijuana use (even in the context of clinical pain relief) is a sign of addictive personality! [ed. update 5/3/08: Some of them die without the transplant.]

But if you really want to get to the point, look no further than Oakland County Sheriff, Mike Bouchard:

It’s not a good idea and most practicing physicians who work in pain management know there are better and more effective medicines to deal with the issue rather than using marijuana.

Like the legislators who craft these laws, Bouchard is neither a physician, nor is he a patient. And even though it might generally be true that there are better medecines, this is not a fact which applies to all individuals in all circumstances at all times. There exist patients for whom marijuana is the best and most effective medecine.

[Bouchard] said he believes the true agenda of those backing the Michigan ballot proposal is to legalize marijuana for everyone.

His true colors are starting to show! Bouchard is not at all interested in the will of the people he’s alleged to protect; he has his head so far up his ass that he clearly wouldn’t know what “the people” really wanted, even if they were to voice their opinions through an unscientific online poll, much less, a November ballot initiative. .

At the time I read the article, a whopping 77% of DetNews poll respondents indicated that “everyone” should have legal access to marijuana. Everyone. If it was “the will of the people” which outlawed marijuana back in the 1930s, then “the will of the people” should be permitted to rescind that law.

‘[T]his a guise to advance the process of legalization,’ [Bouchard said.]

So what if it is!

Hundreds of thousands of people smoke pot every day. Some of them are terminally ill. Others just like to burn one once in a while. If that’s what the people want, why can’t you let them have it? Bouchard is allowing his personal opinions to interfere with his obligation as a public servant and elected official. Ostensibly, he is in office because of the people who voted for him, and we can infer from his statements that he has no interest in the alleged will of the people.

It’s not about what the people want. It’s not about the public welfare. It’s not really about addiction, dependency, or gangs, or any other side-effect of the war on drugs. It’s about power. And Bouchard, like other petty tyrants, doesn’t want to cede an inch.

Anyone who advances the argument that only pain patients should be able to use it legally is effectively saying, “I’m OK with letting the other people decide how I live my life.” There is no special moral status granted to the terminally ill. But if you only support medical use, this is essentially what you’re saying: “As long as you are healthy, other people (through the apparatus of the State) get to decide how you shall live your life.”

And since it is ultimately “other people” who decide whether you’re healthy, there’s not much of a distinction between the two.

Full-blown legalization is what the discussion should be about.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics