Nearly 100 students at San Diego State arrested in drug bust

[mam1959]

I take issue with the notion that people ought to choose which drugs they ingest. Yes, a nice libertarian thought, and perhaps that thought should be extended to marijuana. But really, no one with any public health sense is going to suggest that we decriminalize something like PCP. Ask any experienced emergency room people in a major city - they won't even think of working on PCP patients unless really restrained and tranquilized - and police officers are rightly scared to death of them. So like virtually everything else drug control is a line drawing exercise - balancing the harms versus the cost of enforcement. There are certain drugs that just shouldn't be legalized.

And Galosien - there are sound arguments for legalizing marijuana. But decriminalization is one thing, and countenancing its use is quite another. It is a drug, it involves smoking (most of the time), it creates a wasteful dependency in some and a true lifetime of motivation killing misery for a few, and all too often, although varying with the individuals at issue, is a gateway to truly harmful drugs. Your arguments (and I suspect you are younger) have a tone that purports to defend the use of the substance - which - from a public health perspective, is not defensible.

The economic arguments for decriminalization are reasonably strong- and in fact - given the tax revenues that could obtain as well as the diminution of drug traders and dealers who operate outside the law and enforce their contracts accordingly (with negative externalities that we bear) - it begins to make sense. The credibility of decriminalization arguments, however, is undercut by those that appear (and you do give off those vibes) to exalt in the efficacies of the substance. I think it works to you detriment. It needs to be approached from an unemotional public policy and health perspective.

[Spanks]

If the government is so interested in public health maybe it should make fast food illegal as well.

I don't think decriminalizing something like PCP would necessarily result in an increase in PCP use. It's safe to say that most people would not do PCP, regardless of its legal status (or heroin, or E, etc.). I doubt it would ever happen, anyway, because the public would never support such a policy.

[banana]

I'm really torn on this legalization issue. At least with Marijuana.

I agree that legalizing harder drugs wouldn't make everyone run out and try them, but I DO think that it would 1. Make them way too easy to get for both kids and addicts and 2. Make them more enticing for people who are one the edge, considering use. I mean if the gov. says its okay, why not? As a former user, I'm glad drugs aren't easier to obtain and use than they already are.

I go back and forth on the marijuana issue. In my ideal world, people wouldn't use drugs without medical supervision by a responsible doctor. Obviously that isn't going to happen.
But I do think that the marijuana culture (as it is today) can lead people VERY easily to more dangerous drugs. It might be different if the government regulated marijuana.

That said, I am bothered by people who say that marijuana is completely harmless. I have seen people who's lives have been negatively impacted by this drug, and it shouldn't be taken lightly. That said, alcohol is legal and that drug causes more harm than just about everything else combined, I think. No, the law doesn't make sense, but I don't really think there is a good answer right now.

But getting back to this San Diego issue...I'm really glad to see the DEA looking for drugs in places besides the border, African American ghettos, etc. I'm writing a paper about the crack cocaine sentencing disparity and the stats are absolutely atrocious. I'm not saying that there isn't a drug problem in other places, it's just nice to see that the scope of the "War on Drugs" is being widened.

This raid also brings the issue of drugs into the laps of college students, parents, etc. I think this is so important. All too often I think people think that drugs are just "not their problem" and that drug problems "happen to other people." Drugs don't discriminate. Addiction can happen to anyone.

[mam1959]

banana - I agree with your points. Keep in mind as you write your paper, however, while the crack cocaine disparities are real, the fact is that leaders of both parties, including the Democratic Party and significant numbers of urban black leaders, insisted in the 80's on stiff penalties for crack cocaine - it was that disastrous for the communities involved. In hindsight, these statutes (and sentencing guidelines) need to be re-examined, but the laws on crack cocaine were NOT the result of a conspiracy - they were merely a desperate reaction to an out of control problem.

And more to the point, I would think you would want to concentrate on the economics of crack cocaine. A single hit of crack cocaine is much cheaper than cocaine, but with a high lasting for a short period of time - causing a user to go back and back again with greater frequency. The smaller dollars "per hit" along with its addictive propensity make it a perfect street drug - petty crime or prostitution can support some level of use, and demand can mushroom quickly, meaning that more get scooped up in the criminal justice net. All are a disaster for the inner city.

And as far as economics goes, cocaine is a drug for the rich or well off. Nothing bothers me more than hearing about spoiled college kids indulging in the destructive passions of the rich while sponging off Mom and Dad - my respect for these kids at SDSU, if they are convicted, is exceedingly limited. This is of course a harsh judgment, but for those of us that financed our own way through school worrying about having anything to eat, such wasteful conduct does not sit well.

[banana]

mam1959: I'm definitely not going the "conspiracy" route. I'm just saying it was a pretty big overreaction. In fact, the democratic party, in its effort not to appear "soft" on drugs is a major part of this. Bill Clinton is only second to Reagan in being tough on drugs, although he has made a public apology since.

Although one thing I do have to say...I was pretty young when all of this happened, so I wasn't really "there" but I'm not sure it was an "out of control" problem. I know it was depicted that way in the media. But cocaine use peaked in 1982 before crack was on the streets. At that time, it was still rich kids, but they had learned to freebase. It wasn't until crack was marketed to the lower classes that the media freaked out. If there is one thing I do think about this? The media was completely out of line. I'm looking over headlines from the 80s and it all these sensationalist ******** comparing crack to a "plague," an "epidemic," etc. No wonder it seemed so terrible.

I'm not saying that crack isn't a terrible drug. It is. I've been there. But the idea that it is "100 times more addictive than cocaine" and that it incites violence and prostitution? Not necessarily. I take issue with a legal system that sentences someone to more prison time for having 2 rocks in his pocket than someone who rapes a woman.

And the numbers today, 20 years later, just don't match up. Most crack and cocaine users are white. Most people sent to jail for crack and cocaine? Black. By a huge margin.

And who gets offered treatment instead of prison time in a lot of cases? Usually whites.

Conspiracy? I think not, but it certainly tells you where we focus our efforts in the "war on drugs." Probably because its easier that way, but that doesn't make it okay.

I can send you links if you want. I also don't want to change the overall discussion from the San Diego bust.

[spideygirl]

banana: "And who gets offered treatment instead of prison time in a lot of cases? Usually whites"

Oh man, that is so true!!!!!!!!!!

Prisons are filled with African-American males, the majority of whom probably have a primary problem of addiction.

People who suffer from the disease of addiction are all discriminated against. People of color are even MORE discriminated aganst when they suffer from this illness.

The next time you see a homeless African American junkie walking down the street, know that his disease is THE EXACT SAME ILLNESS as the blonde-haired starlet that you read about in People magazine. She gets to go to Promises or Cirque Lodge, and he gets to do hard time.

If junkies get caught dealing or stealing, it is only because their disease was left to progress to that point. Addiction is always progressive, and it always affects the parts of the brain which control morals and decisionmaking.

When you have limited resources or come from a family which does, you are WAY less likely to go into treatment. I also believe that when most judges see a dark-skinned re-offender, they think he deserves prison instead of treatment. Just a gut feel.