Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Insane state policy a “very poor choice of words”
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The Sun-Times’ John Fountain wrote a column last month entitled “Why can’t we stop the killing?”…
I am sick and tired of writing stories about kids caught in the crossfire — about a little boy having his brains blown out while watching cartoons, or little girls being shot while jumping rope, or being pushed by their mother in a stroller, or while selling candy. So sick and tired.
When will it stop?
And after all these years, I finally know the answer. It’s simple: When we muster the collective will — moral, ethical and political — to make it stop, by any means necessary.
* Former Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney James Gierach responded…
As a former Chicago prosecutor, I sat on the edge of my kitchen chair as I read Sun-Times columnist John Fountain’s July 5 piece, “Why can’t we stop the killing?”
But like many in positions of influence, Mr. Fountain cannot see or chooses to ignore the prohibition elephant in the room. His answer is that we need the “moral, ethical and political will” to make the killing stop. I don’t know which to do first: vote, pray, go to church or continue doing all three. […]
I support CeaseFire, but all mainstream violence solutions have a serious shortcoming: They start with prohibition as a given. Prohibition has been the bipartisan political consensus ever since President Richard Nixon declared the glorious war on drugs in 1971. I support calls like that of Mr. Fountain for more social, religious, economic and political initiatives.
But each of us should demand an end to the war on drugs—not because drugs are good but because the drug war is worse.
The war against drugs doesn’t work; it puts more uncontrolled and unregulated drugs everywhere. Both the good guys and the bad guys support it: the drug cartels and Chicago street gangs on one team, and the police, court and prison personnel, drug treaters and municipalities that share in forfeited plunder with the relish of Uncle Scrooge on the other.
Who is against the drug war? Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
LEAP is an international nonprofit of former drug warriors. Drugs are too dangerous not to control and regulate, and prohibition has surrendered that control to street gangs and cartels. It is time to create a system of control and taxation with different regulations for different drugs depending on the relative harm posed by different substances.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:15 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Insane state policy a “very poor choice of words”
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
A sane and cogent arguement for ending the disasterous “war on drugs”. The cost savings alone should make this a no brainer! However, common sense doesn’t exactly run deep in politicians with the ability to change current onerous drug laws.
Comment by nickypiii Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:21 am
“Ending Prohibition” is an end-state. An outcome. Kind of like “universal health care”. Easy to say it’s a desired outcome. But much harder to say HOW to get there and what the TRANSACTION COSTS would be.
Comment by rc Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:25 am
Legalize POT , step #1 . We have wasted so much money on a failed policy . ( Also a bunch of squad cars in the north east would still exist )
Comment by Downstate Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:29 am
Gierach has been making this same argument for twenty years without any appreciable success.
Comment by Esquire Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:31 am
===But each of us should demand an end to the war on drugs—not because drugs are good but because the drug war is worse.===
Exactly. Well said.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:32 am
Esquire, you could say the exact same thing about the war on drugs. Except Gierach hasn’t killed anybody.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:32 am
But I expect POT sales to drop among musicians b/c once legal the whole “cool” or “rebel” factor will disappear .
Comment by Downstate Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:33 am
Why not? It would be a new source of tax revenue, and lord knows, both the feds and this state need more revenue (and less spending).
Maybe all the new state revenue could be dedicated to paying off the bills and pension deficit?
Comment by RNUG Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:36 am
I whole heartedly agree with James Gierach and this isn’t just an inner city issue, one only has to look at the violence along the border to find that this “war on drugs” is killing people and for what? It hasn’t even done anything to stop drug use.
Unfortunately we live in an age where our politicians are not leaders and not willing to take on problem solving. More people will continue to die in vain due to the lack of leadership of our elected officials at every level of government. Of course I’m also a hypocrite, I’m not running for office.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:38 am
No one can make a big difference except the folks in those communities. Have to end the code of silence. If the residents won’t cooperate with police to turn in the killers, can’t expect anything to change.
Comment by just sayin' Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:43 am
just sayin’ - If the gangs’ power was severely curtailed by taking away their funding source, maybe people wouldn’t be so afraid to speak out.
This nonsense needs to end now.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 11:53 am
Esquire, you’re right when you say that Mr. Gierach has been expressing these views for some time. You’re wrong when you say he’s not achieving success. Years ago, Mr. Gierach was ridiculed. Today, lots of people — well-placed, influential people, many with law enforcement backgrounds — express these same views… privately so far… quietly… but momentum is building.
Mr. Gierach’s views are increasingly mainstream.
Comment by Very Anon Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:01 pm
=== Esquire, you could say the exact same thing about the war on drugs. Except Gierach hasn’t killed anybody. ===
Exactly.
Plus, it is arguable if that there has been no “appreciable success.” At least in terms of marijuana prohibition, I think marijuana reform has made a lot of headway over the past years. A number of states have legalized medical marijuana (yes, still conflicts with federal law), and cities, including Chicago, have somewhat decriminalized it. And more and more people are speaking out against marijuana prohibition, including unlikely persons like Pat Robertson.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:02 pm
=== we live in an age where our politicians are not leaders and not willing to take on problem solving ===
Unfortunately, yes. We won’t have a rational drug policy in this country until polls show that strong majorities support it, and the political risk has receded.
Comment by Coach Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:03 pm
The problem is education… of voters. Too many people still believe that smoking pot is going to turn you into a drug-crazed murdering gangbanger armed with an assault rifle (sorry, couldn’t resist) raping and killing everyone. The older generation (say 75+, since I am mid sixties) had the “reefer madness” preached at them; these people vote and vote for, many politicians of the same generation, who have the same background.
Either that, or they are caught up with “conservative” politics, which means that you are automatically pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro- law and order(regardless of what the constitution says) etc., etc., and… anti-drug.
Anyway, maybe, as my generation and younger comes on up, we will have the guts to change what is obviously not working.
Comment by downstate commissioner Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:12 pm
Three states (Oregon, Washington and Colorado) have various forms of marijuana legalization on the ballot this November. Like gay marriage this is an area where public opinion is rapidly shifting and we may see major changes in the near future.
Comment by wishbone Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 12:14 pm
– It is time to create a system of control and taxation with different regulations for different drugs depending on the relative harm posed by different substances.–
How does that not make sense?
Whiskey and tobacco are murderous poisons. Yet society has learned to live with them because prohibition of alcohol proved to be a disaster.
It’s not a left-right issue. Conservatives ranging from Pat Robertson to George Schultz have spoken out against the Drug War.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:00 pm
A birth defect caused me to develop neuropathy at the age of 55. Eight years later my feet are like two blocks of wood and my hands are beginning to go the same way. And always and unceasingly is the pain. They give me stuff like Fentanyl and morphine to deal with that but the level of drugs needed to reduce the pain to a manageable level also reduce me to a barely functioning vegetable. Peer reviewed scientific studies have proven that cannabis is the best pain reliever for neuropathic pain but pot isn’t legal so I eat morphine and Fentanyl and Lyrica and stare at the TV. Sometimes I even turn it on. I have written to every elected representative I could and have received nothing in return but form letters, not even so much as a “sorry about your troubles” just the same anti-marijuana blather they have been regurgitating for forty years. I swear, an independent thought would die of loneliness and neglect in either Springfield or Washington.
Comment by Griz Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:11 pm
Another consequence of ending prohibition is that it would cause widespread unemployment among those currently gainfully employed within the drug distribition industry–a population already prone to violence. What alternative jobs would they turn to?
That’s not a reason to maintain prohibition. But it is foreseeable and must be planned for.
Comment by Rudy Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:17 pm
Legalizing marijuana, while it is a good idea, will not stop violent criminal organizations from being violent criminals. If laws were passed tomorow and marijuana, crack, heroin, meth were all legalized would they just all drop their weapons, look at each other, and say “Damn, they beat us we dont have anything to fight over anymore” and just all go home and be productive citizens? Nope. They would still be violent criminals. Legalization of Marijuana does make sense for many reasons, but this is not one of them.
Comment by SO IL M Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:27 pm
By legalizing drugs you take away the need for users to have lots of money. Thus, you remove the incentive to commit crime to get the money. And you eliminate the lucrative business that fuels gangs and causes them to,fight over territory. Some people will use drugs. They do now. But you eliminate the money, violence, criminality and death that all rise from prohibition. You think we would have learned something from al Capone. Apparently we didn’t.
Comment by Publius Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:32 pm
===If laws were passed tomorow and marijuana, crack, heroin, meth were all legalized would they just all ===
They might not drop their weapons, but they’d be dead broke.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:40 pm
===What alternative jobs would they turn to? ===
Wendy’s is hiring.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:42 pm
Griz - Lou Lang has been doing a great deal of work to try to get medical marijuana passed and has come quite close. You might contact him and see if there was a way you could assist his efforts. Perhaps he has some on-the-fence legislators that could be swayed by your story.
Comment by Lakefront Liberal Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:44 pm
Step 1: Legalize and tax marijuana.
Step 2: Monitor results.
Step 3: Apply lessons of Steps 2 & 3 to other recreational drugs.
Step 4: Monitor results.
Step 5: Continue.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:48 pm
Rudy - Lots of gang members already have to have other jobs because ultimately being a low level drug dealer for a gang isn’t very lucrative.
Additionally, if all of the money we’re currently spending on this ridiculous war could be used for treatment, rehabilitation and training, a lot of those young people might have opportunities that don’t currently exist.
SO IL M - I, for one, don’t believe the majority of violent criminals are born that way. Their current environment is highly conducive to it; ending the war on drugs would significantly alter that environment.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:50 pm
Perhaps if the Mayor of Chicago stopped playing campaigner in chief for obama and cabinet member emeritus and spent some actual time doing the job he gets paid to do which at last check was not to be DNC aide de camp the city’s murder rate would be lower. LA and NYC are doing just fine, but they also have mayors who pretend like their job isn’t just resume filler before their next gig.
“The war zone-like statistics are not new. As WBEZ reports, while some 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago during that time, based on Department of Defense and FBI data.
Chicago’s murder rate is also currently quadruple that of New York and double Los Angeles’ rate. Gun violence Friday evening into Saturday took the lives of at least one person — Antonio Buck, of the 5400 block of South Aberdeen — and wounded at least seven others, including a 16-year-old boy shot in the lower back around 11 p.m. Friday.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
Comment by Shore Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 1:56 pm
The book “Too Politically Sensitive”, by former State Police Investigator Michale Callahan, provides interesting insight into the black market drug business in our State. The war on drugs provides an untaxed, unregulated business opportunity for organized crime. Prohibition serves as an enabler for the problem to grow.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 2:00 pm
I’m for ending prohibition. Any relaxation may decrease crime. But eliminating it is a long battle. If you just allow pot, the distributors will emphasize coke and opiates. Don’t underestimate Hollywood and the recording industry’s willingnrss to assist by romanticizing these substances.
Gangs will create demand for and market any prohibited
substance, and they will be financed by cartels, until they’re all legal–then they will move to prostitution, weapon sales, unregulated casinos and leading. Gangs’ primary skill set is violence and intimidation. If all black markets were closed, expect increases in burglary and robbery.
Comment by Rudy Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 2:29 pm
Can we all just stop and marvel at the fact that this story is posted on CapitolFax? When I started reading this in 2004, if someone told me that in 2012 we would be having this conversation, I would have laughed (and had a completely opposite view of the situation).
Also, if anyone pays attention to me at all, y’all know what I’m going to say to this one.
Bang those drums. (Hat tip to Wordslinger on that one)
Comment by Colossus Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 2:38 pm
Bob Dylan says it pretty well:
The Times They Are A Changing….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCWdCKPtnYE
Comment by Sunshine Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 3:06 pm
I think I’ve seen elsewhere on here that big problems do not have simple solutions. Not letting minor drug issues put people into the legal system would seem to at least be a start in the right direction.
Comment by Bemused Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 3:13 pm
SO IL M,
There are those who have suggested the same thing on this blog only to get the same basic response.
While I agree that the removal of illegal drugs as a money maker for gangs would, in the short run, reduce their accounts receivables the nature vs nuture arguement about how behavior is shaped in an individual or group has not been concluded in any meaningful way. To say that violent gangs would become a thing of the past, as some have suggested here, once drugs are legalized is naive at best. Union racketeering, money laundering, kidnapping, extortion - the list is nearly endless. Gangs will always exist and the liklihood of them being violent is there also. We won’t be making those activities legal just so we can reduce the violence of the gangs who perpetrate the crimes. Would that it were that easy.
Laws restricting the use of tobacco in various circumstances are becoming more commonplace as the gov’t seeks to reduce consumption of this poisonous substance.
I can see employers instituting policies in which they insist on regular drug testing of their employees with an eye towards controlling the longer term effects of the drugs on the workplace. If that were to happen, it is possible the drug use will drop as people wish to keep their jobs more than the wish to get high. Tax revenues would drop even while the gov’t seeks more ways to spend same. Would make a good morality play.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 3:39 pm
“Step 1: Legalize and tax marijuana.
Step 2: Monitor results.
Step 3: Apply lessons of Steps 2 & 3 to other recreational drugs.
Step 4: Monitor results.
Step 5: Continue.
– MrJM”
JM: you’ve well pointed out the unknownness of the transaction costs–a known unknown, if you will–by leaving them completely unaddressed!
Comment by Chris Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 4:01 pm
In a bizarre scenario where we have a mayor who seeks to limit the amount of cola one can purchase at one time we have, on the other side, those who advocate the legalization of virtually every narcotic/mind altering substance currently known to human-kind. Wow. Maybe we should take a page from those who write above an re-legalize those mega-soda pops and tax them - that would solve our revenue problems, no? We could set up programs that seek to wean people off their pop addictions and help them thru their struggles w/weight loss and everything. This stuff writes itself.
(late friday snark)
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 4:18 pm
If you want to control something make it an insurance issue.
A lot of construction firms are already doing pre-hire and random drug tests. In part because it is a mandate on some public works projects but also due to insurance company demands. Your rates can be much higher if you don’t test. Does this keep all those guys clean? The ones who want to work full time are.
I think back to when I went to buy a car in 1971. I really wanted this great 1970 GTX 440. It would have ran me 600.00 per year for ins. Needless to say I did not get that one.
Comment by Bemused Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 4:19 pm
- This stuff writes itself. -
Maybe it should try a rewrite…
Your arguments don’t make a whole lot of sense, unfortunately. No one is saying all crime and violence will go away, nor that revenue problems will go away. That’s just a silly straw man.
The basic argument is that more violence is created by the war on drugs than there would be without it. That’s it, end of story.
I really don’t even know what to make of your arguments about cigarettes, but whatever the government is doing about tobacco I haven’t seen a large scale gang problem related to it’s black market. Nor with cola…
And tons of employers already drug test, legalizing wouldn’t change that. So I really don’t see your point there either.
It seems you have a straw abuse problem, Dan, fortunately for you that’s legal.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 4:32 pm
Everybody’s got a simple solution.
“I support CeaseFire, BUT…”
“But each of us should demand an end to the war on drugs—not because drugs are good but because the drug war is worse.” What?
“The war against drugs doesn’t work; …”
“It is time to create a system of control and taxation with different regulations for different drugs depending on the relative harm posed by different substances.” And then what?
Yeah, let’s tax the drug cartels and ‘hope’ that decreases the violence?
As I like to say: ‘Hey, man: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the of the problem.’ What EXACTLY is Mr. Gierach’s solution? Control & Taxation? Is THAT it?
Comment by sal-says Friday, Aug 3, 12 @ 4:47 pm