The Morning News today recently published an editorial titled “Drug Users Share the Blame in Officer’s Death.” It begins:
This is for anyone who even occasionally uses drugs and for the people in their lives who –- even if they disapprove –- ultimately do nothing to stop the drug use: you have blood on your hands.
D Magazine contributing editor Trey Garrison had something to say about that on his blog. Go ahead. Guess whether he agreed with the editorial.
41 comments
That’s like saying if you fill your car up with gasoline you support the terrorists.
I absolutely agree, it was not the drugs that were to blame for the officers death, it is the fact that they are illegal. When you make any desirable thing illegal black markets spring up and violence comes along with those black markets.
I hate to sound like I am trying to argue that we should legalize stuff like cocaine and heroin, they are obviously dangerous social ills and their widespread availability in my opinion would have a negative impact on our society but it’s not the drugs itself that brings the violence but the markets created because of its legal status bring the violence.
None of this applies to pot, I don’t partake in it but there is not a single reason that I can think of to justify creating a violent black market around something so harmless.
Trey nails it. Every reasonable person agrees.
If I grow my own marijuana, am I exonerated from the withering glare of the DMN scolds? Somehow I doubt it. Moral Panic is more addictive than heroin.
I disagree with Trey Garrison. Purchasing – even occassionally – illegal drugs creates a job for drug dealers.
It isn’t remotely like saying buying gasoline supports terrorists. If you are going to make an argument at least make a good one.
Do we legalize drugs just to remove them from society? When these drugs cause the destruction of lives and families?
Marijuana isn’t harmless. While it can be beneficial in specific medical situations, marijuana impacts health, brain function, and memory. A disproportionate percentage of marijuana users getlung cancer and cancers of the mouth and larynx. Marijuana use impairs judgment, thinking and learning. Memory impairment may persist six weeks. Think back to the pot smokers from high school – they weren’t necessarily spaced out because they had recently smoked.
Trey et al need to take a hard look at themselves.
Tim, today isn’t January 8, the date the editorial was originally published. Even when you hastily scavenge other peoples’ blogs for content there is still a bare minimum of effort required of you to frame up the facts for your readers. IJS
The DMN editorial board’s error was not including the War on Drugs as another accomplice in the blame. Regardless, drug users should share in the blame not only for what is happening in America but far more for what is happening in Mexico and beyond. However wrongheaded our laws are, drug users are committing a crime by buying drugs and therefore are contributing to illegal enterprises who go on to do nasty stuff with the money they earn. Victimless it isn’t.
Louise, do you think alcohol should be illegal? Cigarettes? Why or why not?
I remember very clearly one day when I was probably 9 or 10 years old and my dad, who was a narcotics detective at the time, telling me about what he did at work on a long car trip. He explained everything his job entailed and then said, “Of course, it’s all futile and it’s like putting a Band Aid on a severed limb.” He pointed at the cars passing us on the highway and said, “Probably one in every 15 of those cars or trucks is transporting illegal drugs. It’s ridiculous to think that we can even scratch the surface. We need to legalize the stuff and tax the hell out of it.” Did I mention that my dad is about as conservative as it gets? So yeah, the War on Drugs was a joke to me from a very young age. So much money and violence and time spent on a truly unwinnable war.
Yep. The editorial came out shortly after the death of the officer. Old news. But still worth dissecting since it was ignored when it was first published.
Also, Louise, the gasoline analogy isn’t perfect, but it is perfectly serviceable. Where the hell do you think Al-Quaeda’s money comes from?
The guy they were looking for when Norm got killed was on the run for an ag assault, not drugs. That’s why I was confused by the editorial.
I don’t think you should legalize drugs. Just my view, others obviously have a different one.
Sitting with DPD at Norm’s funeral two weeks ago, I wasn’t mad at drugs.
I was mad at the apt complex owner for letting people like that live in the complex. I was mad at the two criminals involved that were two POS.
Hey people in Plano like drugs.
I agree that marijuana should be legalized, and I’ve never smoked it in my life. It’s likely less harmful than tobacco and alcohol.
But everyone seems to be missing the fact that, at this point in time, marijuana IS illegal. So the DMN has a point, in my opinion. Everyone who uses this illegal substance does in some way contribute to the deadly activities that accompany the supply channel.
If you just ignore laws that you don’t agree with, you do it at your peril. I don’t think there should be speed limits on many western interstates, either, but that won’t keep me from getting a ticket.
@amandacobra
I completely agree with you and your father. I am also a conservative that believes the War on Drugs has cost society much more than it has benefited. Legalizing drugs would have the exact same overall positive effect as repealing Prohibition did in the 30s.
I would support decriminalizing all drugs, except perhaps crack. Not so much because it destroys lives, more so because people who use end up looking so skanky.
mm,
Higher-grade marijuana in these parts is grown hydroponically. The supply channel is named Tom.* I myself don’t partake of this awesomely killer bud any more than I’ve engaged in premarital sex. But if I did, would I still be guilty of contributing to murder?
_____________________________
* Just an example of a name that a person might have. Most growers of hydro aren’t named Tom, and most people named Tom don’t grow hydro. Plus, he’s kind of wary about meeting new people.
Daniel, in that case, smoke away.
But I doubt that the folks involved in Norman Smith’s murder were clients of Tom, so that particular post is largely beside the point.
@ Michael Davis
I should clarify that I agree with you that the criminally negligent property managers/landlords at this complex have blood on their hands and that the man who pulled the trigger is ultimately 100% responsible. No matter whether or not I agree with drug laws, they are laws and have to be enforced and that’s what these officers get paid to risk their lives to do.
Amanda said it better than I did.
Yes, I certainly don’t blame the cops. They’re the watchdogs of society. Some blame fool legislator goes and makes a law against planting trees and, love it or lump it, they’ll go shut down Arbor Day.
Drink beer. It’s legal, if you drink responsibly. No matter how much pot you smoke, you’re still contributing to a black market (criminal) economy.
Alcohol & Ciggies, vs Marijuana
All depends on how highly-paid, fancy, and well-connected your lobbyists are.
Tobacco and Marijuana = both weeds that grow in the ground. And anyone who says toebacky has no effect on brain/circulatory function does not understand physiology.
You know who was one of the biggest opponents of the repeal of Prohibition?
Al Capone.
Exactly, Trey. And anyone who drank alcohol supplied via Capone’s criminal network had blood on their hands.
Which was the point of the DMN piece. Not whether pot should be decriminalized.
I think you miss the point.
The only reason money flows to criminals in drug transactions is because we’ve made drug transactions criminal.
Want to stop money flowing to criminals? Decriminalize drugs.
When you support a war, don’t be surprised there are casualties.
Hey, it’s not me. I don’t know or care where the stuff comes from or how it gets here. I don’t personally know any of the judges/police officers/journalists who have been tortured and executed by the drug lords and their thugs, so it’s no skin off my hide. If you’re going to obey the laws of supply and demand, you’re going to have to expect some widows and orphans. Price of doing business, satisfying the market. All I know is I want my drugs. I do not want to think about what that entails because, frankly, that part is none of my affair.
I AGREE WITH YOU. MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGAL. I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO SAY IT. DAMN. IT.
But right now, pot isn’t legal. And anyone who helps create demand is part of the problem, which is the point of the DMN editorial. Seeing as how it’s illegal and all.
If you’ll reread the DMN editorial, you’ll see that there isn’t one word about whether pot should be legal. Maybe that point should have been made, but it wasn’t.
But that doesn’t mean the point that WAS made isn’t valid.
So if alcohol were criminalized, and you went out and bought a fifth of Old Grandad from your old granddad (hi Bill!) who happens to be a moonshiner, is the blood on your hands, or on the politicians who outlawed it and created the black market for it?
If you believe you are above the law, and don’t have to obey the laws you don’t particularly care for, then does it really matter whose blood it is?
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying criminalization creates the black market. That’s where the problem begins. That’s the root.
And that example is apples and oranges anyway, much like Daniel’s drug dealer Tom.
Yes, if you buy whiskey from your Grandpa and pot from your hydroponic grower, Tom, and no one else is involved, there is no blood.
This editorial was talking about the criminal networks for drug distribution, the ones where blood definitely is involved.
And to be truthful, even though I’m guilty of it too, saying “let’s decriminalize pot and that will solve everything” is naive. The same criminal distribution systems would still be in place for the harder drugs. Or do you want to sell crack and heroin at the CVS as well?
How many criminal networks for the distribution of booze are there these days?
CVS can make its own decisions, but I imagine if pot were legalized, it would be sold in specialty stores.
OK, it’s really hard to debate this, with your own blog entry containing this sentence:
“If marijuana were legal and sold at the neighborhood CVS, do you really think there would be violence associated with the pot trade?”
And you still didn’t answer the question, where do you draw the line? If you legalize pot, don’t you push the problem one drug harder?
The sentence you cite from my blog and the sentence I wrote at 5:01 do not contradict one another.
And I don’t draw the line. If consenting adults want to use cocaine or heroin, that’s their decision. A stupid one, to be sure, and one with consequences they should be forced to deal with. If they do anything criminal while under the influence of those harder drugs, they should be held accountable, the same as someone who is drunk and breaks the law.
For the sake of argument, Trey, let’s grant pot a special status — cottage industry, legalized, and so forth.
That leaves crack, opium, cocaine and the hairier illegals, the ones that depend upon vast and murderous production and distribution chains. Your argument comes down to this: It’s not those who buy and use these drugs that make possible the corruption and slaughter. It’s the law against the drugs.
One might extend that argument to any law. Passing a law criminalizes certain kinds of activities and leads to resistance, violence, corruption. No law, voila! No crime, no criminals.
This is the weakness in so much libertarian thought: Laws create our probelms, not human behavior.
Let’s perform a little thought-experiment. In this experiment we decriminalize drugs. It now becomes legal to grow, process, distribute and market all drugs. Who do you think will continue to control the drug trade? The same trans-national apparatus that controls it now. Because they’re the eperts with access to the sources, with the labs and ships and dealers. And because you’ve de-criminalized them, their behavior will change? Why should it? The reason the cartels are so vicious is that they are locked in deadly competition for the market. De-criminalizing will only expand that market and intensify the competition. These folks are already experts in monopolizing markets, capturing territories, rigging distribution systems — all through corruption and murder. Want to give them a green light?
The illegal drug system is the most perfect example of Darwinian capitalism in existence. All other forms of capitalism are controlled. You’re advocating simply acknowledging this system exists and turning our heads?
This is hardly clear thinking, Trey. This is wishful thinking.
“That leaves crack, opium, cocaine and the hairier illegals, the ones that depend upon vast and murderous production and distribution chains. Your argument comes down to this: It’s not those who buy and use these drugs that make possible the corruption and slaughter.”
During Prohibition, alcohol depended upon “vast and murderous production and distribution chains.”
And since Prohibition was repealed, Seagrams, AnheiseurBusch, et al have seen few violent turf wars.
Capone an his contemporaries were once experts “in monopolizing markets, capturing territories, rigging distribution systems — all through corruption and murder.”
Are you suggesting this is how the liquor business is run now?
The difference, Trey, is that Seagrams and Anheuser-Busch were in the production/distribution business when the mob was in diapers. The most Capone et al. could do was take over U.S. distribution. With Repeal, the old, legal, distribution apparatus was still intact. Seagrams and A-B were not murderous or corrupt to begin with, so business resumed with barely a ripple.
Not so the illegal drug industry, which has depended upon violence from the beginning and has vast resources of wealth and power to draw on. There IS no legitimate source of illegal drugs. One would have to be created from scratch. Do you suppose the cartels are going to sit back and watch that happen?
There are other arguments to be made against legalization, of course. It would make extremely damaging substances widely available to a society that has difficulty containing the damage already done by some legal substances. These arguments are a little harder to draw out, though no less legitimate.
I want to add one more point, Trey: Have you ever known a user of illegal drugs to pause even for one moment to contemplate the long sorry chain of bribery, exploitation, corruption, torture and murder that lies behind the drug he or she enjoys? Of course not. The user cares about one thing and one thing only: The hit.
Would legalizing drugs change this in any respect?
D Magazine = Aggressively competing with Dallas Morning News
How soon will Trey usurp Tim as editor? It would be a great move.
Trey, you know Tim will catch on to you posting as “Sally”.
“The difference, Trey, is that Seagrams and Anheuser-Busch were in the production/distribution business when the mob was in diapers. The most Capone et al. could do was take over U.S. distribution. With Repeal, the old, legal, distribution apparatus was still intact. Seagrams and A-B were not murderous or corrupt to begin with, so business resumed with barely a ripple.”
So you’re saying that it is not possible to build a legitimate business around a product people want bad enough that they risk imprisonment to get it illegally? Give me a break, if it were legalized you would have Marlboro, Camel, and every other company in the cigarette and alcohol business scrambling to get their distribution networks set up. Those same growers down in Columbia would now be able to sell their product on a much larger level through legitimate supply chains.
“Not so the illegal drug industry, which has depended upon violence from the beginning and has vast resources of wealth and power to draw on. There IS no legitimate source of illegal drugs. One would have to be created from scratch. Do you suppose the cartels are going to sit back and watch that happen?”
Yes. In fact many of them would jump right into the legal supply chain that would inevitably be created. Or maybe they would move on to another black market, who knows, but I am absolutely sure that decriminalizing drugs would lead to a legal method of getting drugs and a fairly large legitimate source of revenue.
“There are other arguments to be made against legalization, of course. It would make extremely damaging substances widely available to a society that has difficulty containing the damage already done by some legal substances. These arguments are a little harder to draw out, though no less legitimate.”
The other arguments are just as absurd as the first set you made. Because some adults can’t handle their liquor, should we make alcohol illegal? It’s the same bad logic used to keep drugs and gambling illegal in most places.