How Can We Debate Them if They Don't Even Know What Decriminalization Means?
The Los Angeles Times is publishing a series of debate pieces this week between Saying Yes author Jacob Sullum and Charles Stimson, a former prosecutor and senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Here's the first question:
What's the difference between drug legalization and decriminalization? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
Jacob Sullum's answer is terrific. Charles Stimson's answer begins this way:
Two points: First, there is no difference between decriminalization and legalization. Second, whichever term you want to use, it's a bad idea.
I suppose there is nothing more predictable in the world than the tendency of drug warriors to open their arguments with sweeping and false generalizations. Still, this is just so dumb and wrong that it barely qualifies as an opinion.
We could debate the exact meaning of decriminalization, but it is typically used to describe situations in which penalties are simply reduced, i.e. a fine instead of possible jail time. You can still be taken into custody and subjected to various escalating sanctions. For example, 33,000 people were arrested for possessing small quantities of marijuana in New York City in 2006, despite a decrim policy that's been in effect since 1977. Legalization ends possession arrests and presumably regulates commerce.
It shouldn't be necessary to define commonly used legal terms for a senior legal fellow at a prestigious thinktank, but this is the drug war, and as usual, its supporters can be found creating their own reality in which to debate us.
After getting the opening question wrong, Stimson launches into a series of preposterous claims. He observes that daily wine consumption improves health, while daily marijuana use destroys the mind. He accuses drug-addicted navy sailors of threatening national security. He suggests that some states don't charge people for committing rape. He insists that drug users have too many children out of wedlock.
I can't frickin' wait to hear what he'll say in tomorrow's installment.
[thanks, Scott]
digg
redditGreat!
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 8:11amIt is wonderful to see such a brain-dead dickwad as Stimson get the counter-point to an articulate spokesman like Sullum in a major venue like the LA Times.
When the best prohibs clearly state their case, as best they can, they make prohibition look idiotic.
Exactly
Comment posted by Scott Morgan on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 11:10amStimson is a great choice. He absolutely comes off as the crazy one.
Decriminalization, NY Style
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 11:22amIn New York State, possession of 25 grams or less of cannabis is a violation, equivalent to a parking ticket. The fine is typically $100. Like double parking, possession of 25 grams or less of cannabis is not a crime and does not result in a criminal record. It is illegal, just like double parking is illegal, but it is not a crime. It is technically a violation, subject to civil citation.
That's what's meant by "decriminalization" -- taking the crime out of it. Still a long way from legalization.
How much longer will we allow the "authorities" to violate our natural right to enjoy this fine medicinal plant in the comfort and privacy of our homes?
-- Glad the Inhaler
Government Hypocrisy?
Comment posted by David Dunn on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 11:37amToday's New York Times (4/22/08) has an article entitled, "Army and Marine Corps Grant More Felony Waivers." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/washington/22waiver.html?ex=1366603200...
To the left of the article is a graphic. Under the Heading: "Offenses For Which Felony Waivers Were Given," the first item is: "Wrongful Possession of Drugs (marijuana not included)."
Isn't it interesting that the Armed Forces apparently doesn't include "marijuana" in the category of drugs?
Apparently "military intelligence" is a bit higher than Congressional Intelligence. Maybe Congress should recognize that cannabis isn't a drug and remove it from the Controlled Substance Act.
Ronald Reagan once said that Congress accused him of going over their head. He said that a lot of things go over Congress' head.
The inability of Congress to recognize that cannabis isn't a drug and that American universities should be allowed to grow, research, test and market cannabis products is evidently another one of those things that goes over Congress' head.
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.
— Thomas Jefferson
What does "simple possession" of marijuana mean?
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 3:52pm.01 gram to 1 ton?
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%2290+percent%2C%22+%22simp...
Both sides can be accused of creating their own reality.
.org
So THAT'S what causes it!
Comment posted by rita on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 5:22amAs I've suggested before, somebody really ought to study the psychological effects of not using illegal drugs. Non-users appear to have trouble separating fantasy from reality and often seem confused and unable to express ideas coherently. (Maybe because their ideas are stupid.)