Why We Should Treat Our Addicted in the War On Drugs

BY DIEGO LUCERO


How many people, do you think, know someone that has been affected by drugs?  How many people have become imprisoned for drug-related crimes?  Is there a better way to fight drugs?

We in America have waged a formal “war on drugs” for at least the last 30 years, and an informal war against them for much longer.  Obviously, the Drug War is a very sensitive issue that affects many people, an issue which people have very strong opinions about.

Ronald Reagan,
40th President of the US

This is definitely apparent in several recent polls, one which shows ¾ of all Americans support the drug war, and another that shows ¾ of Americans believe the war on drugs has failed.  What does this tell us? It tells us what some already know:  that solving the drug problem is extremely important to us, but we believe the current approach we are taking to solve the drug problem is severely flawed. 

So, when we’re talking about the war, what exactly is it that doesn’t work?  Can we identify root causes?  Is there a better solution? 

To identify a proper solution for anything, we must first identify the nature of the problems that we face.  And of course, no proper solution can be developed without the proper history.  So, before we talk about possible solutions, let’s take a short journey into the history of the drug war.  After all, if we’re not students of history--we’re doomed to repeat it, right?

A Brief History of the Drug War

The 18th Amendment & Alcohol Prohibition (1919)

Remember alcohol prohibition?  In 1919, Congress ratified the 18^th amendment, which officially gave Congress the power to ban Alcohol in the United States.  Corresponding laws (like the Volstead Act) codified the ban, which made it officially illegal to sell, manufacture or transport alcohol within the borders of the United States.  What this essentially did is make all business that could relate to alcohol illegal.

What did this lead to?  Well, the ban had some very interesting effects on the culture here in America.  Instead of curtailing the behavior of drinking and lessening the amount of addictions, it had the opposite effect, as well as some other very well-documented unintended consequences.  Here is what happened in a nutshell:

• Alcohol trade is made illegal
• The trade of alcohol went underground to the black market
• Organized crime became widespread, which caused:

• Progressively more theft
• Progressively more violence
• Progressively more addiction problems
• Progressively more inmates

This continued for 14 years.   In that time, the mafia (who don’t care what laws are on paper) gained more and more power, and because they protected their interests, single-handedly dramatically increased the level of violence in America, almost overnight.  All people that wanted to drink had to buy their alcohol directly or indirectly from the mafia.



Figure 1:  US Prison Makeup by Offense--
Pie Graph SOURCE: The Liberty Papers
Statistic SOURCE: Bureau of Justice Statistics

So, the 18^th Amendment actually gave the mob an unofficial monopoly on the trade of alcohol.  This allowed mob bosses to charge whatever they wanted for a bottle or a case.  Also, since there were no other places to buy alcohol from, and since consumer demand for alcohol didn't change, when people bought alcohol, the mafia made whatever revenue they wanted.   It doesn't take a PowerPoint presentation to realize the terrible unintended consequences of these public policies of prohibition on the country as a whole.

In 1933, public sentiment had grown to the point where most people were so afraid of the ever-increasing power of crime syndicates--the frightening increases in violence, drug addictions, and property theft--that they pressured their politicians to ratify the 21^st Amendment (which repealed the 18th amendment, officially lifting the prohibition of the business of alcohol in the United States). 

So what did this teach us?  I believe that it taught us two very valuable lessons, both which should not be easily forgotten.  The first lesson?   You can't pass laws to change people's behaviors.  Many laws are “positive” (rooted in positus: to assume as fact) or “of arbitrary decision”, and if people feel that the laws are unjust, they will rebel.  So in this respect at least, it cannot change people's behaviors.

The second lesson is: Legal prohibition doesn't work!  The reasons that this is true are legion.  Apart from the first lesson that I have identified above (laws can't change people's behaviors), I have identified two other main reasons prohibition doesn't work.  One large reason is that it redirects money to people that do not follow the law in the first place (and as we saw earlier, this has terrible consequences).  The other reason (and I will cover this in more depth later) is that it punishes addicts, instead of treating them.

The Marijuana Tax Act (1937)

Figure 2: Prison Populations by Country --
SOURCE: The UN Human Development Project (2007/2008)

In the years leading up to the passage of "The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937", there was a disturbing practice that later became known to our history books as "Yellow Journalism".  What is yellow journalism?  Yellow journalism is "journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration, especially in regards to public policy."  Yellow journalism is a form of lying to the public, and unfortunately in this case, it was employed heavily to shape the public's opinion to favor the passage of this law.

Listed below are some of the many (non-inclusive) examples of the "yellow journalism" regarding marijuana, circa 1935-1937:

• marijuana causes car accidents
• marijuana causes "loose" morality
• marijuana causes acts of shocking violence (ie. "if you smoke a joint, you are liable to kill your brother.")
• marijuana causes incurable insanity
• marijuana destroys the soul 
• marijuana is deadlier than heroin or cocaine

Needless to say, the Marijuana Tax Act passed Congress with the indispensable help of yellow journalism. Prior to its passage, the public was clamoring for a solution to the "marijuana problem." 

Figure 3: Incarcerated Americans Line Graph -- 
SOURCE: The Daily Kos: "Getting Past Prison"

However it is worth noting, since they were a few years removed from the lift of the alcohol ban, people and politicians knew that a full prohibition of marijuana would most definitely illicit the same results as the prohibition of alcohol.  So, instead of criminalizing the usage of hemp, marijuana or cannabis: Heavy taxes on its commercial sale and firm regulation on its production (enforced through heavy fines and possible 5 year imprisonment) were levied instead.

Since then, yellow journalism has taken many different forms, and I am sure is still being practiced today.

The Drug War: Reagan to Today (1981-now)

Ramping Up the War On Drugs

The drug war really took off when Ronald Reagan was elected as President of the United States in 1981.  To be fair, the notion to “revamp” the war on drugs was a very large, bipartisan effort.  However, it could still be said: The war on drugs had found their champion in the most prestigious political office in America.

Since 1981 (on to today), the bicameral congress and the President passed many laws in rapid succession that “ramped up” the drug war on a massive scale.  The most popular approaches are to criminalize the usage and/or sale of all drugs (besides alcohol); Impose prison sentences and very heavy fines.  Drug prevention programs crawled across the US.

Figure 4: Prison Populations Bar Graph-- 
SOURCE: P.a.P.-Blog:
"Statistics On Prisoner Population Rates"

Due to the massive change in policy nationwide to prohibit all drugs save alcohol, the same pattern of unintended consequences emerge.  Since 1981:

• Prohibition of all drugs dramatically increase
• Drug users are criminalized 
• Users are sent to prison instead of treated
• Users are fined large amounts 
• Users become more addicted in prison

• Organized crime gains power and influence, which led to:
• More violent crimes
• More theft
• More inmates
• More addiction problems (restarting the cycle) 

The Rise of Prisoner Populations in the US

Stephen Littau of the Liberty Papers writes (in 2009):

• Since 1984, America’s prison population has quadrupled from 580,000 to 2.3 million
• Though the U.S. accounts for 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. accounts for 25% of the world’s reported prisoners
• Local, state, and federal spending on corrections costs the U.S. taxpayer about $68 billion annually* (California spent nearly $10 million on corrections last year by itself!)
• 16% (350,000) adults in prison or jail are mentally ill
• 3/4 of drug offenders in state prisons are non-violent offenders or in prison solely for drug offenses
• 47.5% of all drug arrests in the U.S. were fore marijuana offenses
• Despite insignificant statistical differences regarding drug use among races, Blacks (accounting for 12% of the U.S. population) account for 37% of all drug arrests, 59% of which are convicted and account for 74% of all drug offenders sentenced to prison

In 2009, 47.5% of all arrests in our country were marijuana offenses, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.  According to the same data, writes Senator Jim Webb (VA):

"Additionally, nearly 60% of the people in state prisons serving time for a drug offense had no history of violence or of any significant selling activity. Indeed, four out of five drug arrests were for possession of illegal substances, while only one out of five was for sales.

In response to the "tough on crime" mentality response to the data above, Senator Webb adds this observation:

 “With so many of our citizens in prison compared with the rest of the world, there are only two possibilities: Either we are home to the most evil people on earth or we are doing something different–and vastly counterproductive.”

It's worth noting:

What’s amazing is that most of this imprisoning trend is recent, dating really from the 1980s, and most of the change is due to drug laws. From 1925 to 1975, the rate of imprisonment was stable at 110, lower than the international average, which is what you might expect in a country that purports to value freedom. But then it suddenly shot up in the 1980s. There were 30,000 people in jail for drugs in 1980, while today there are half a million.

Here is the Power Point:

Other resources:

1. "The Failed War on Drugs" by Connor Boyack (May 5, 2010)
2. "Brief History: The War On Drugs" by Claire Suddath (Mar. 25, 2009)
3. "Prisoners In 2004" by Allen J Beck, Ph.D; Paige M. Harrison (Oct. 23, 2005)
4. "Why We Must Fix Our Prisons" by Senator Jim Webb (VA-D) (Mar. 29, 2009)
5. "Reforming America's Prison System: The Time Has Come" by Stephen Littau (April 11, 2009)

Additional Reading:

1. Obama’s New Drug Control Report Calls for More Workplace Drug Testing, Nationwide Zero Tolerance Laws, Prescription-Only Ephedrine Products, and the Return of the “Above the Influence” Campaign
2. Read on the topic: "Marijuana" at TIME.com

Fire Your Bank!

[The following is an original article]
BY AARON ABELL


I don't use banks. Not personally, and not for my business. I haven't had a checking account now for about two years. I hate them! Why? It all began in 2010 when I heard a whisper of a rumour that the banks (at least all of them that participate in a central banking system) were cheating 100% of their clients, 100% of the time. I knew of the Wall Street bailouts and of the derivatives markets and all, but I couldn't imagine a dishonest operation organised on that scale, and that endemic to a particular industry. After about two years of searching on and off again however, I found proof of the most widespread and pervasive fraud in the HISTORY of the united States (that is, after that of the creation of the Federal Reserve and the IRS). Every single bank—let me repeat that again: every single bank, beit local, State, or global has robbed their account holders blind. And their customers don't have the slightest idea of the deception! It comes down to this: when you open an account and deposit your money, it is no-longer your property. It belongs to the bank.

Don't believe me? Here are some excerpts from court cases for your examination:

1. Carr vs. Carr (1811) - “when money is paid into a banker’s[account books], he always opens a debtor and creditor account with the payor. The banker employs the money himself, and is liable merely to answer the drafts of his customers to that amount.”
2. Foley vs. Hill & others (1848) - “The relation between a banker and his customer who pays money into the bank is that of debtor and creditor, the banker being liable to repay to the customer the money which he holds for him when required to do so by the customer. When a customer pays money into his account at a bank It ceases to be his money; it becomes the banker's money and he can deal it as his own. He is not vis-à-vis the customer in the fiduciary position of a trustee or quasi-trustee holding the money for the customer as for a cestui que trust.” (Note, a cestui que trust is basically the beneficiary of a trust)
3. N Joachiamson vs. Swiss Bank Corporation (1919) - “Money placed with a bank on current account is, no doubt; in the position of money lent by the customer to the bank: Pott v. Clegg ; Foly v. Hill.”
4. Guelich Explosive Co. v. Soberdash Coal Co., et al., 51 Som.L.J. 252  - “Unlike a general depository account which created the relationship of debtor and creditor between bank and depositor, special bank deposits made expressly for a particular purpose cannot generally be attached to satisfy the depositor's general obligations. Where such funds are considered special, the funds are said to be held "in trust" for the benefit of the third party.”

Stand And Be Counted

 

BY AARON ABELL
(Reposted with permission. Original article at Government As Fiction) 


     With the passage of the National Defense Authorisation Act of 2012 (NDAA) the police state, about which every US citizen has been so often warned, has come to pass. IGNORE THIS AT YOUR OWN PERIL AND CONDEMNATION. I will begin with a quote:

     "It is said in the Doctrine and Covenants, that he that keepeth the laws of God, hath no need to break the laws of the land [D&C 58:21]. It is further explained in section 98 [D&C 98], what is meant in relation to this. That all laws which are constitutional must be obeyed, as follows:
     “And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
     “And that the law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me;
     “Therefore I the Lord justify you and your brethren of the Church in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land. And as pertaining to laws of man, whatsoever is more or less than these cometh of evil” [D&C 98:4–7].
     "That is taking this nation as an example, all laws that are proper and correct, and all obligations entered into which are not violative of the constitution should be kept inviolate. But if they are violative of the constitution, then the compact between the rulers and the ruled is broken and the obligation ceases to be binding. Just as a person agreeing to purchase anything and to pay a certain amount for it, if he receives the article bargained for, and does not pay its price, he violates his contract; but if he does not receive the article he is not required to pay for it."

- President John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 26:350  

     The above scriptures are plain as to what duties a citizen of the US, but the Latter-Day Saint especially has, concerning government and law. The people of this earth cannot support (either actively or tacitly) immoral, evil laws and expect their rights as children of God to be held sacred. The passage of the NDAA is, in my opinion, one of the grossest challenges to the eternal nature of God's children, and therefore His authority. In Leviticus 6:2-3, the Lord declares:

     "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
     "Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:"

     Acts against people are therefore primarily acts against God Himself. Further evidence of this can be seen in Matthew 25, especially verses 34-45 (for more information on this, please see the article "In Mine Own Image" at www.ldsliberty.org). When a government seeks to act contrary to God's law it seeks, by its actions, to supplant God as the ultimate authority. This is evil, and CANNOT be supported by true Christians. God will not be mocked.

Our Heavenly Banner

The Scourge Of False Choices

 

BY DIEGO LUCERO

In today’s world, we have choices. We can choose which Supermarket we can shop, we can choose which car we drive, we can choose which restaurant we take our family to eat. We choose our careers, we choose our mates, and we choose our elected officials. We can choose right or wrong. We choose our faith. It could even be said that our individual moral codes are actually a complex system of the choices that we have made throughout the courses of our lives. Here in America, we are accustomed to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of our choices. We have choices because we have freedom.

However, we also have ‘false choices’.

"The logical fallacy of false choice is a correlative based fallacy in which options are presented as being exclusive when they may not be. It’s often used to obscure the likelihood of one option or to reframe an argument on the user’s terms."(1)

Simply put, false choices are based on misinformed or misrepresented facts. This is usually because they are the products of narrow-minded worldviews, which have been closed off from outside or opposing opinions. They can also be called ‘biased’, ‘partisan’, and/or ‘divisive’.

False choices fool us. They disarm us by causing us to believe that we are solving problems, even if the choices presented yield the same result or no result.

This is why I believe ‘false choices’ are a root cause for the mass confusion present in our world.

Dallin H. Oaks (Apostle of the Lord in the LDS church) gave a powerful address concerning false choice and deception in October of 2004. He stated:

“From your position on the road of life, you . . . have many miles to go and many choices to make as you seek to return to our Heavenly Father. Along the road there are many signs that beckon. Satan is the author of some of these invitations. He seeks to confuse and deceive us, to get us on a low road that leads away from our eternal destination.”(2)

Most of us can agree that this is true. We wrestle with deception at various levels on a daily basis. One of the best ways this concept is represented is through an analysis of our tradition of choosing politicians. After all, haven’t we all heard the statement, “Choosing the lesser of two evils”?

Every year, we are bombarded with phone calls, door-to-door pamphleteers, national news coverage of political races, and various forms of solicitation for donations. We watch, hear about, and read politically charged articles that are meant to sway public opinion in one direction or the other, or to support this candidate or the other candidate. Our social networks are flooded with personal insights, political language, and aggressive graphics opposing other people’s views. We endure painful political debates where candidates trounce on and demean all that we believe to be noble and true.

Why School Tuition Is So Expensive

 

BY DIEGO LUCERO


It’s the beginning of the year again, and students are filling the halls of universities and colleges across the United States.  Touted as essential to the “American Experience,” students are leaving their homes at the advisement of parents to pursue their educations.  It can be said that in today’s world, there is almost nothing more desired--or even needed--than an education that would adequately qualify us as participants in the “American Dream”.

This year though, things are different. 

We are in a prolonged recession.  Real unemployment is very high.  Deficit spending is at a record high.  Our national debt now exceeds our Gross Domestic Product.  Let’s not even talk about the interest our country owes against our national debt.  We have wars and rumors of wars.  Political discussion has become polarized and has been overtaken with evil intent.  It’s becoming difficult to be hopeful, as it is becoming more and more clear that the change that we desperately need may never actually come.

Because of these reasons and more, colleges and universities have been seeing a very significant upward trend in enrollment over the last few years.  The National Council for Educational Statistics¹ reports that there are more students applying for admission into higher educational institutions this year than in any prior year (an estimated 20.7 million²).  In 1990-1999 and 2000-2009, overall enrollment increased 38 percent and 45 percent, respectively.  Non-traditional students make up 63.15% of all new enrollments during the 2000-2009 time period¹.  Total enrollment is projected to continue setting records each year, ultimately reaching about 24 million students by the Fall of 2019². 

Just like our demand for quality education, tuition prices have never been higher.  According to Bloomberg and the College Board³, the average tuition increases last year was 8.3% at public universities (almost three times the rate of inflation), and 4.5% at private universities.  At an average tuition increase of 8.3% per year, the price of college will double in 9 years.  It’s also important to notice that the ten-year historical rate is 6%⁴, which doubles college prices after a period of 12 years.  From looking at the data, it is clear that our college prices are rising at much faster rates than our nation’s inflation and average wage.

Washington Post's "Chart Of The Day" for Oct 10, 2011,
featuring Matthew Philips' data at Freakanomics

At the end of the day though, what really matters are completion rates.  In a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)⁵ which is based on data up until 2007 derived from 30 member countries, it was reported that the United States completion rate ranked first in 1995.  In 2007 however, we had fallen to 14^th with a 36.5% completion rate, well below the OECD average rate of 39%.

"What that tells you is that a number of other countries have been much more successful in expanding their higher-education systems," [says Andreas Schleicher, head of the OECD unit that produced the study.] "The United States has fallen so far behind in higher-education completion, and private costs have become so high, that some people are suggesting that tuition has become a barrier to extending participation."⁶ 

So, we have evidence of a tuition barrier.  It’s actually becoming so expensive that people must drop out of school because they cannot afford it.

What is the primary cause of this trend of expensive schooling?  The short answer: subsidy.  More specifically, federally guaranteed financial aid (student loans and grants included).  Why does financial aid drive up the prices of school you ask?  The answer lies in a basic understanding of how opportunity cost works.