Re-evaluation of drugs-laws
New drug and alcohol laws
This article I posted on http://women.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/andreasfirewolf
Imagine that the USA would adopt a policy like this:
- The use of any substance (heroine, cocaine, alcohol, nicotine) is legal for personal use,
- if that person is older than 25 (for example);
- and that substance does not cause criminal behavior.
(A substance that makes you loose your mind in such a way that you start killing people can not be legal.)
- The use of drugs and alcohol by people younger than a certain age
is to be punished with re-education in a special institution.
- Supplying young people with drugs is severely punished: life-long sentence for example;
- Drugs are sold in the drugstore and taxed with special health-tax.
With these taxes, institutions that try to cure drug- and alcohol-problems are financed.
- The DEA and other narcotic-task-forces will be closed.
The employees can be more useful with anti-terrorist activities.
What results can be expected?
Organized crime and terrorists
will loose a major part of their funding
- Organized crime will loose a major part of their income and will have less money to corrupt society;
- Terrorists will loose a major part of their funding;
- Since there is no more money to be made by selling drugs, the drug-dealers will disappear.
The pressure on young people to start with drugs will diminish;
- Street-gangs will loose a major part of their income, the members have to find ordinary jobs.
There will be less money to buy weapons. There will be less violence on the streets.
- Drug-addicts can buy their drugs for regular prices at the drug-store,
crimes done by drug-addicts will fall sharply;
- The drug-addicts finance their own rehabilitation when they buy drugs:
The drugs are taxed with health-tax and the money is spend on institutions that try to cure drug-problems;
- If giving drugs to young people is severely punished
and we can prevent the usage of drugs by young people, the drug-abuse will drop sharply.
Not many people start with drugs when they are mature.
- It is essential to try to keep young people away from nicotine.
Nicotine is the gate-way to drug-addiction.
Not in a way that ALL smokers will become drug-addicts.
Everyone can see that this is not true.
But on the other hand: How many drug-addicts are non-smokers?
Nicotine does make people more vulnerable for other addictions.
If you can keep juveniles away from nicotine, you also keep them away from other drugs.
- The conflict between liberty or personal freedom and the drug-laws disappears.
I am not quite sure about the constitution of the USA.
In my country, the Netherlands,
there is a sharp conflict between article 1 of the constitution and the drug-laws.
Article 1 prohibits discrimination on any ground. Since nicotine and alcohol are legal
and other drugs are not, the law discriminates. This discrimination is not on medical or scientific grounds,
but on cultural and religious grounds. So the drug-laws are a violation of article 1 of the dutch constitution.
- Unfortunately, the Netherlands is a rogue-state with a very corrupt government.
The Netherlands have 'gedoog-beleid' (allow-policy: politicians allow things that are against the law
and instruct the police not to intervene). In the Netherlands people do NOT have rights, but they can get favors.
Dutch politics is very keen on keeping the judge powerless. They simply try to regulate everything outside court.
So, the Netherlands is NOT a modern democracy. It has not a constitutional state like the UK, the USA or Germany.
- A very strong example of the above is article 120 of the constitution, which turns the whole constitution
into a farce. Article 120 says: 'De rechter treedt niet in de beoordeling van de grondwettigheid van wetten en verdragen.'
(The judge can not judge about the constitutional legality of laws and treaties.) So politicians can make
laws that violate the constitution, and judges have to uphold these laws, even while they know that they are
unconstitutional. One should ask the judges, why they are not on strike.
- It has not happened yet, but suppose an attorney of a drug-criminal (for example caught with 1.000 kg of cocaine)
would demand the return of his drugs and immunity of his client against criminal prosecution,
this demand has a good chance to succeed.
Article 1 of the constitution of the Netherlands prohibits discrimination of any kind.
To make a distinction between nicotine on one hand and heroine or cocaine on the other, is based on conviction.
Discrimination based on conviction is prohibited by article 1 of the constitution.
Most lawyers do not have the balls to do so. And there is article 120 of the constitution.
But any lawyer can and should argue, that article 120 in not constitutional and is a violation
of European Law and should be declared illegal. Unfortunately, dutch people get castrated in kindergarten.
That is why most dutch men are sissies. A great example can be found on soccer-championships.
The dutch are absolute world-champion in missing penalties and loosing finales.
They simply don't have the balls to win.
- If an attorney would make such a demand,
it is likely that the judges would make a political decision and allow this kind of discrimination,
because the social and political consequences would be to high.
If the western world would re-evaluate it's drug-policy,
the abuse of drugs could diminish,
crime-rate would fall and the conflict between freedom and drugs-laws would disappear.
The American society has tried to prevent the abuse of drugs,
like it tried to prevent the abuse of alcohol around 1930.
Al Capone and Lucky Luciano gained power with many thanks to the alcohol-prevention-program.
Street-gangs, terrorists and criminal organizations have gained power with many thanks to the drug-laws.
Is there another CIA? We know about the CIA from Langley.
But is there another CIA in Amsterdam and New York?
Is there a Criminal Intelligence Agency, funded by organized crime,
that gathers information about FBI, DEA and many other organizations.
Do they have a database with fingerprints of all people that ever went to a police-academy?
Do they send people to police-academies to infiltrate and to gather information?
If criminal organizations would pay 5% of their revenues to such an organization,
it would have more money than FBI, CIA and DEA together.
The 'war-on-drugs' was lost before 1980. We should do damage-control.
If mature people want to use or abuse drugs, we should let them.
We should not sacrifice our society to useless attempts to save all people.
We should focus our attention to young people and to save mainstream society from the corruption of organized crime.
At the moment, the use of certain substances (drugs) is punished. Why?
Because the majority is against drugs.
But what an adult person does with his/her live is a matter of personal freedom,
as long as the behaviour is not harmful to other people and society.
In stead of punishing the use of drugs, harmful behaviour towards other people should be punished.
If someone wants to destroy himself with drugs, and that person does no harm to other people, it is better to let him.
Destructive persons will find a way to destroy themselves.
If the state taxes harmful substances with health-tax and uses this health-tax for therapy, the damage can be controlled.
With Light and Love, Andreas Firewolf
If you want to comment on this page, fill in the following fields: