Raving Conservative

Google

Thursday, October 13, 2005

A Solution to the Drug Problem

Drugs have plagued society for centuries. Profiteering men of little or no conscience have preyed upon the ignorant and the desperate. Well-meaning people have unwittingly unleashed great chemical scourges upon the world. It may seem hopeless, but drugs are a problem that can be solved, we just need to radically change the way we deal with them.

America has misguided its efforts to curtail drug use, assaulting drug users and addicts with oppressive penalties that ruin people’s lives just for polluting their bodies. These people need help, not prison.

The only people the law needs to focus on are the people providing the drugs to the population. If the drug supply is cut off there will be very little need to deal with problems of addiction since there will be few if any addicts remaining. The question is how to deal with the dealers.

Death is an appropriate penalty for deliberately murdering people by illegally selling them substances that can be lethal in a single dose. Heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and other hard drugs kill millions of people worldwide from a single overdose. They kill even more people from accidents involving the use of the drugs. They kill even more people in crimes committed to acquire the drugs. What could possibly be more appropriate for such mass-murder than death?

If everyone convicted of dealing, trafficking, or the illegal manufacture of drugs gets executed after a highly expedited appeals process we can rest assured that the swarms of young people lining up to make a quick buck selling drugs without fear of the consequences will swiftly evaporate. Without street dealers the drug lords will be forced to get more personally involved, and as has been proven by history; the more involved the boss gets, the easier it is to bust him/her. Permanently removing these scumbag drug dealers from the streets will choke the supply of illegal drugs and reduce the number of users as they have no choice but to quit or get help to quit, and nearly eradicate new addicts since they will not be able to get the drugs so easily

There are three drugs however, that people should not be killed over. They are alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs with a long history and socially acceptable traditions going back hundreds to thousands of years in multiple cultures worldwide. Marijuana has been conclusively proven to be non-addictive (biologically) and has potential medical use if proper research is done. It is no more destructive than alcohol, and while I do not advocate legalizing it for any reason, I am not convinced it is one of the great evils of the drug world.

Rehab should be mandated for anyone caught using illegal drugs, not prison. Drugs are easier to get and more tempting to use in prison than they are in society, therefore imprisoning drug users is a mistake both socially and financially.

By installing this as U.S. law we can clear out a tremendous segment of the current prisoner population as they are either released into rehab (users) or executed (dealers). This will relieve some of the burden not only on the taxpayers, but on the people who are imprisoned themselves by providing compassion and mercy for the most beleaguered victims of the drug dealers, the addicts. While death for drug dealers sounds brutal it is guaranteed to save the lives of countless innocents who have died as a result of drugs or drug related crime. I will trade the life of a drug dealer for the life of an honest citizen any day of the week. It will also preserve the futures of countless American children by keeping them both away from drug use and the drug trade. If we focus on catching and killing drug dealers instead of all of the extra nonsense in the War on Drugs that doesn’t help anything we can win this war.

12 Comments:

  • I almost agreed with you here on this'n. Til you started advocating the death penalty.

    I'm one that is very opposed to drugs (I'm a tea-totaller fella with nary a tobacco stain on my teeth). I've never got why anyone needs any "recreational" drugs...it's just beyond me.

    Having said that, I think that prohibition has failed twice (with alcohol and in our current war on drugs) AND I think that our current solution for legal drugs is failing also (with all the deaths, broken homes and wrecks caused by tobacco and drunks).

    My solution would be make 'em all legal and tax the hell out of them. Then use any money generated from the tax to deal with the problems caused by recreational drugs.

    I'll certainly agree with you that we need to stop going after the users, that's a losing game.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 6:50 AM  

  • Now I'm pro life, and pro life is pro life.(Self defense excepted)
    Now you may say that executing drug dealers IS self defense, but every month someone sentenced to death is set free due to a bad trial or DNA evidence that clears them. The State is just too corrupt or badly run to have the right kill.

    To be consistent, I agree about the drug problem, and suggest life sentences in a Mexican or Pakistani prison where it'll cost about 10 grand a year to house them, rather than the average cost of 2 million to execute them. The local inmates will administer justice, the political leaders will love the income, and actually, life in Prison in Mexico in the middle of some hellhole desert is worse than death.

    By Blogger meesterjoneser, at 6:59 AM  

  • First Dan, legalizing and taxing the heck out of drugs will not eliminate the black market for them since if the taxes are prohibitive people will still turn to street dealers for what would be cheaper drugs. It also wouldn't get these killing substances off of our streets, and that is the goal of what I am suggesting.
    Now Phantom, drug dealers are hardr to convict than murderers in many cases, which is why police will not arrest them without having bought drugs from the individual themselves, or witnessing a transaction involving others. In both situations there is usually video evidence of the dealer plying his wicked trade. Dealers are also busted based on volume. If someone has way too much of a drug on hand for personal use it is considered to be for sale. In both of these situations the evidence is irrefutable. No future evidence will exonerate these pieces of trash. Also, I'm convinced it is more merciful to excecute someone than to send them to a prison system where they will wish they were dead like you suggested. Why force someone to die slowly and horribly in a Mexican prison when we can just give him a lethal injection and have it done with quickly and painlessly?
    Obviously, the jury would need to be extra careful in rendering a guilty verdict in any case where the death penalty is mandatory. As a result it is likely that guilty persons will be found innocent from time to time since nobody wants to be responsible for the deathof an innocent.
    I am firmly convinced more lives will be saved by executing these scumbags than by letting them live. It will save the lives of users, of innocents caught in the crossfire, and of the people who decide to stay honest to avoid getting killed. In that way I consider this to be a pro-life stance. Maybe it's twisted logic, but I care so deeply about the innocent that I am willing to punish the guilty in the most severe way the law allows.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:33 AM  

  • All prohibition amounts to protecting people from themselves, which is totally contrary to the conservative philosophy of getting gov't off people's backs. A paramedic friend of mine has described finding victims of alcohol poisoning, dead in their beds after a single overdose, and anything from a car to a kitchen knife can kill its owner if used improperly.

    And the fact is, if it were legal to produce and sell drugs, as long as the taxes applied weren't prohibitive it would go a long way toward reducing street violence.

    Where do gangs get money for guns? They sell drugs. What do they go to war over? Territory for selling drugs. Why are drugs expensive? Because they're hard to get. The War on Drugs is a government subsidy program.

    Drugs would be less socially destructive, less dangerous, and less costly to the American people (in terms of incarceration and enforcement) if they were regulated instead of criminalized.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 9:36 AM  

  • All you drug legal advocates: I'll not preach, you find out for yourselves if it works in Britain, Denmark, Switzerland. Start your Google's now.

    Fact is -- it doesn't.

    'Nuff said.

    Phantom_Driver
    Proud father of an American Soldier

    By Blogger meesterjoneser, at 10:21 AM  

  • I tried a google and I found a bunch of pro-legalization sites, and a few sites asserting that the countries you mention are full of "drug-popping welfare dependents" -- which, of course, could also be said of the US, with our Reep-initiated MediCare drug benefit. So I'm not sure what your point is.

    Are you saying that Denmark and Switzerland are plagued by street crime and gang violence?

    Or is your point that legalization doesn't reduce drug abuse? For that to make any sense, you'd have to show that incarceration does. And considering the prevalence of drug use inside our prison system, that's a tough case to make.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 11:25 AM  

  • You are both making my point for me. Legalized drugs creates a bunch of welfare dependent drug addicts, incarceration of junkies does little to no good, and the allure of money keeps people entering the drug trade, just as you have both stated. Thatis why targeting drug dealers for mandatory death sentences is the only solution that might work, and the only one that hasn't been tried.
    Every illegal drug in the US was legal once. With the possible exception of Marijuana, which was banned for racist reasons, every drug that is banned was banned for it's high addiction rate and danger for overdose. Rates that far exceed that of alcohol among users. The war on drugs is being mismanaged because it is being fought like a war of politics, not a true war. In true wars battles are fought to the deathuntil one side is wied out, flees, or surrenders. If we had this philosophy for the war on drugs I am convinced there would be far fewer drug dealers, drug smugglers, etc. in part because they would have this nasty habit of dying, and in part because the risk would be too high for many people to want to take.
    As a concession I will admit that part of the reason I do not want to waste time and money going after the drug users is because it is their business if they are so determined to kill themselves that they want to do drugs. That doesn't mean we should let up on the dealers though.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 11:57 AM  

  • You forget the importancy that death plays in the psyche of the drug addled gangsta: it's glorified! They know that is the end game, and that they will die either on the street as an OD or by the hand of another Gangsta. They know death in inevitable, and by dealing drugs they can at least have the "bling" and the women that others cannot.

    As a native son of the Big Apple, I've lived in close proximity to these bad guys, and have several cops in our family. I know these thugs. Death to them is an honor!

    Wierdly, the Gangsta dealers live for it. "Death Row Records" , etc.

    By legally murdering them you actually glorify them, and make them martyrs.

    Stick 'em in a Mexicali caliboose 1,000 miles from the border. It takes 2 million bucks of your money and years of appeals to murder them.
    Half the inmates of the pens now are there for drugs, do you advocate juicing them all???

    And what if some are setup for the fall by other gangstas? Now the state does the murdering for them. Locked up at least they have a chance to prove any innocence they may have.

    You just can't let the the state go around executing people (who may be innocent) and still stand as a "right to life" person.
    The opposition will rightly and smugly say "hippocrite"

    The death penalty is legalized murder. Plain and simple.

    Phantom Driver,
    Proud father of an American Soldier

    By Blogger meesterjoneser, at 12:28 PM  

  • Phantom, you make some excellent points about the attitude of the drug culture. They should be taken into consideration.
    I must disagree that excecution under a legal justice system is murder, just as I say killing in self defence and killing enemy combatants in war is not murder. Even the justice system God Himself gave the Jews during the time of Moses imposed the death penalty for various crimes and atrocities. Watching the way violent crime has increased with the gradual passing of the death penalty, which I once opposed, has convinced me that God was most wise to grant the power of execution to the government.
    As for spending $2 million dollars and yaers of appeals. Scratch that crap. I say give them an expidited process through a special appeals system just for death row inmantes and have them executed a yearto the day of when they were convicted. This is economic, fairly swift, and gives the innocent a chance to prove their innocence. As far as al of those wrongly jailed persons, aren't the vast majority of them people who were convicted long ago, before investigative were anywhere near as advanced as they are now? Our investigators are real good these days, very few innocent people get convicted anymore, especially with all of the excellent defense lawyers we have who can people like OJ aquitted.
    And no, I do not think that people sentenced under the old system should be executed. Let them serve their terms, maybe even clear them out early, then, if they go back to dealing drugs sentence them under the new system. I'm betting a good portion of them would decide it's not worth going back to if they knew they would die for it.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 2:59 PM  

  • A lot more has changed than just the waning support for the death penalty. There are any number of cultural and economic factors that contribute to increased crime rates.

    As to whether the death penalty is murder, you're both right. Lethal force is the ultimate expression of the state's authority -- without the right to execute, the government is legally powerless to compel any action. As such, the state cannot be guilty of murder.

    On the other hand, the state can be a murder weapon, and often is, used by the powerful to assassinate people who lack the resources or fame to secure a slick -- or even competent -- lawyer.

    This being the case, I think that the appropriate standard for executing an individual who has been apprehended and is in secure custody should be so restrictive that the death penalty is almost never invoked. Though I might make some exceptions for serial killers and the similarly despicable, the requirement should be near-absolute proof, not just anything you can sell a jury on.

    And there are better cures for welfare dependency than executing drug dealers. Just as there are plenty of drug (ab)users who are plenty successful.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 7:41 PM  

  • I'm not trying to cure welfare dependency my friend, I am trying to save lives.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:05 PM  

  • Well, we could save lives by banning cars, guns, or gas stoves. The question is, is it the job of the state to protect people from themselves? I know what my answer is.

    Now, going after predators who sell to children and the like is one thing, but the Drug War is a manifest incarnation of the "nanny state" that conservatives detest, and arbitrarily executing people for selling something people want is totally extreme IMO.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 11:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares