Marijuana.com

Pompo

Drug war called ‘abject failure’
Former Seattle police chief calls for legalization
4/4/08|The Bellingham Herald| by Caleb Heeringa - The Bellingham Herald

Despite more than a trillion dollars spent, drugs are more available today at lower prices and higher potency than at the beginning of America’s “war on drugs,” the former chief of the Seattle Police Department argued Thursday.

Norm Stamper, chief of the department from 1994 to 2000, spoke at Western Washington University in an event organized by the school’s Drug Information Center.

Photo by Mark Malijan - The Bellingham Herald
Norm Stamper, former Seattle Chief of Police,
delivers a speech on the war on drugs at the
Performing Arts Center at Western Washington University,
on March 3.

Speaking for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Stamper called the drug war an “abject failure” that has led to the unjust incarceration of millions and created a system that promotes a violent drug trade that has ravaged Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

“The incineration of human beings … decapitation … this is the kind of violence that a multibillion-dollar drug trafficking industry creates,” Stamper told a crowd of approximately 150 students and community members.

Stamper said the prohibition of drugs is partially responsible for that violence, since it creates a market that dealers exploit.

“The demand has always been greater than the supply, which is why the suppliers make so much on these drugs,” he said.

Stamper outlined some of the “collateral damage” of the drug war, including:

Students who have lost out on financial aid because of misdemeanor drug convictions.

Individuals living in poverty who have been denied federal public housing because of drug convictions. Stamper noted that neither rape nor murder convictions prevent someone from receiving public housing.

Nearly 2.3 million Americans jailed on drug charges, with nearly 90 percent of those convictions being simple possession. Stamper also argued that the drug war has disproportionately affected African Americans, leading to between seven and 10 times more black people being charged with drug crimes than white people.

As a solution, Stamper proposed legalizing all drugs and having the government regulate them — similar to the current system for alcohol and tobacco. Stamper argued that since decades of government intervention has done little to stem the flow of drugs into the country, the government may as well try to cut down on the violence inherent in the drug trade.

Several audience members questioned the morality and practicality of having the government sell drugs that could kill people and lead to addiction.

Stamper was not completely sure of the logistics, but countered by saying that drug addiction would be a reality whether users were getting their substance from the government or a drug dealer on the street.

Why not ensure that people were getting clean needles for intravenous drugs and using proper strength drugs that would limit overdoses, Stamper argued, pointing to the success of rehabilitation programs for addicts in Europe.

Either way, Stamper said America has erred in treating drugs as a criminal-justice issue instead of a publichealth issue.

“We spend seven times more on enforcement than we do on prevention and treatment,” he said. “Think about all the good that would be caused if we reversed that number.”

 

Buzzby

Speaking of our favorite government-regulated drugs, alcohol kills 150,000 Americans every year. Tobacco kills 450,000. Alcohol is addictive. Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man. I wonder if these audience members would favor locking people up for selling or possessing a bottle of Jack Daniels or a pack of Camels?

"Government regulated" has nothing to do with the government selling drugs. Alcohol and tobacco are regulated. Their production, distribution, and sales are all handled by private industry.

__________________

quickie

"Alcohol and tobacco are regulated. Their production, distribution, and sales are all handled by private industry." While I will concede that beer and wine(both alcoholic beverages) are sold by private industries. Of the three states I have lived in all have controlled the sale of liquor. County stores are the only place to purchase.

Victor_vicious

The laws concerning alcohol sales and distribution vary because they are controlled by the states. My state used to have a Liqour Commission. It was the only Departement that actually returned money to the state. John Engler turned that over to 'Private Industry'. I have noticed the same truck hauling it, with the same big red numbers on the side and top of the trucks. I had a conversation before the change, with one of the drivers. If that truck doesn't show up where it is supposed to at the time it is supposed to the State Police are supposed to have a Helicopter up looking for it in a matter of minutes. I wonder what other 'Private Industry' is afforded thos type of protection. VV

Buzzby

Which states are those? I didn't know that any still had that kind of setup. It was that way in Ohio when I was growing up, but I haven't seen what we called "state stores" in any state for at least 20 years.

 

Freedom_User

The truth is... When I was underage.. It was ALOT harder to get alcohol and cigarettes than marijuana.

quickie

MD, NC......been that way in both states for the last 50yrs.

Swabeky

I can think of 3 State Liquor stores in the Cincinnati area, well they are called State Liquor, whether they are run by the gov't or not I don't know.