Write to Capuzzo in Jail!

How do you figure Capuzzo never would have become addicted had drugs been legal? While I believe we agree that all drugs should be de-criminalized and that with them being legal, the cost of recreational use and/or abuse would be less in that the “street value” of narcotics would significantly decrease. Though, it could logically be argued that government taxes would artificially increase the cost.

Just to firstly point out: From my discussion with Mark about his past, it is my understanding that he has worked very hard and has kicked his addiction. Sadly, he has not been able to kick the weight of the "justice" system that will seemingly following him around forever.

Why would people be less likely to be addicted, were drugs legal? Well, if you look at the trend of hard drug addicts throughout history since the passing of the United States' first drug law, addiction has been a steady 1.3 to 1.4 percent. This is according to the DEA's own statistics.

Many people who experiment with drugs in the black market today get them from drug dealers who push dangerous chemicals on their customers in efforts to make money. Were drug dispensers allowed to operate in the open market, an incentive to ensure the health of customers would be paramount. In a world where reputation was so essential to surviving, a company that created or pushed products to people that caused people to develop addictions would not look too good.

Since there is a percentage of the population that is prone to abusing drugs… the peaceful solution would be to educate these people about the REALITY of the dangers of drugs. D.A.R.E. (a miserable, proven failed program) essentially teaches children that using marijuana is the same as popping prescription narcotics. This is furthest from the truth.

Were children educated about the realities of drugs… and not just told "IT'S DANGEROUS, IT'S ILLEGAL, DON'T DO IT!" When people are indoctrinated that using a narcotic is the same level of danger as using marijuana, or having a shot of tequila, it is no wonder that once they try marijuana…. the thought of using something more dangerous doesn't seem like a big deal.

And, without our tax money being wasted on a failed and corrupt war on drugs, I would agree that treatment would be more accessible overall, but do you mean to imply that treatment is less effective now than it would be in a legal-drug society?

Treatment is FAR LESS effective today. There are very few options for opiate addicted people in today's world. This is because of vast regulations and laws prohibiting the availability of the type of drug that an opiate addicted person is addicted to.

I've known addicts who were hooked on heroin, who had the option of methadone treatment, but decided against it because it didn't work for them. The treatment of their addiction with methadone would essentially be "free" to them…. but it just didn't work.

In Switzerland, where heroin addicts get the specific drug they need, this is a non-issue. This type of treatment has all sorts of other positive side-effects… HIV/AIDS transmission elimination being one of them.

Please don’t confuse my questions with discompassion (which is what the liberals and conservatives tend to do). Rather, I’m trying to better understand your logical approach to this.

Oh not at all sir. Debate is important… especially for people like us: the minority.

I have always argued that we should punish the real crimes, in this case burglary, rather than the perceived causes of the real crime, such as addiction.

I completely agree that real crimes should be met with justice. There are a few things that must be understood about the punishment of this particular crime:

1) It never would have happened, were there not a prohibition of drugs; and

2) You cannot escape the fact that if you want to force this person to be punished by the means of the state…. you are forcing everyone else to pay for it.

I also believe that once a person has “paid his debt” for real crime, that we should allow him/her to get on with their lives and that probationary periods are probably less productive than one would expect.

The corrections unions/corrections system love probation… it is a sure-fire employment guarantee.

I'd wager that a good 20-30 percent of inmates in any given NH county jail facility are there for failing a urine test… by having marijuana/alcohol in their system.

Any politician who says that marijuana offenders do not serve jail time are flat out lying. Sure, they're sentenced for the "original" offense….. but the fact remains that the person is incarcerated for their use/possession of an innocuous plant.

And to add: in a world where drugs were legal, there would still be addictions. There would just be far less… and far less crime associated with obtaining said drugs, and controlling the black market, etc.

No solution is perfect.

Just wondering….. Exactly what monetary value would be levied in the restitution for the feelings of extreme violation and the loss of peace of mind and feeling of safety in your own home, to be paid to the victims of a cowardly act such as burglary?

I think it should be severe, steep, and punitive.

Simple burglary during the day time… after property damage and stolen item restitution, I'd like to see $50,000-$100,000 in punitive damages. Payable throughout an entire lifetime, if need be.

Brad, there is one problem with your argument that were drugs legal, fewer people would become addicted. Alcohol is the most widely abused drug and it is perfectly legal. Are you going to suggest that alcoholics don’t commit crimes or resort to less than appealing methods to obtain alcohol, which is cheap and easily available? Go to an AA meeting or speak with an alcoholic about what they may have done to get alcohol and you will find plenty of people who have done far worse things than Mark.

"Prohibition quickly produced bootleggers, speakeasies, moonshine, bathtub gin, and rum runners smuggling supplies of alcohol across state lines. In 1927, there were an estimated 30,000 illegal speakeasies–twice the number of legal bars before Prohibition. Many people made beer and wine at home. It was relatively easy finding a doctor to sign a prescription for medicinal whiskey sold at drugstores.

In 1919, a year before Prohibition went into effect, Cleveland had 1,200 legal bars. By 1923, the city had an estimated 3,000 illegal speakeasies, along with 10,000 stills. An estimated 30,000 city residents sold liquor during Prohibition, and another 100,000 made home brew or bathtub gin for themselves and friends."

… is what I'd say (er, quote) in response to that

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article…

The point I was trying to make (and failed) is that prohibition seems to increase the availability of prohibited substances.

It is really impossible to say whether or not the prohibition of alcohol increased or decreased the use of said substance… as the people operating in the black market didn't pay taxes or submit to inspection of their records.

It is nearly impossible to make an accurate statement relative to the amount of use….. while is quite possible and factual to say is that the prohibition of alcohol increased its availability.

The statement of Andrew Furuseth before Congress in 1926 describes what happened in the opening years of Prohibition:

When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district— it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"— and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.

Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever.