endlesseulogy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,831
18-02-2004 12:08 (#1649172)
I am a strong advocate of ending prohibition. In order to do this, we must encourage the media to promote positive drug stories. The only reason people usually die of ecstacy intoxicity is if they are #1. Dumb, #2. Fallen prey to black market dealers cutting costs. Solution: If ecstacy were legalised the government regulate dosages and quality.. people would be able to make an informed choice about the right dosages reducing the risk of dumb people intentionally over dosing.. regulating legal MDMA would totally cut out meth labs.. reducing gang crime.. pure MDMA is relitivly physically harmless.. 1 in 100,000 people have a fatal recation to MDMA.. 1 in 10,000 people are allergic to strawberries.. does that mean we should ban strawberries? prohibition dosnt make sence.. protest for your rights.. please consider the following :
Alcohol and tobacca Many people think of them as an innocent drug. But is it? Alcohol and tobacco kill more people worldwide then all illegal drugs put together, yet it is socially acceptable to drink and not think twice about its effects. Prohibition of alcohol has proven a mistake in the past, just like prohibition of other drugs are now. We only have to walk down the streets of Melbourne to see how prohibition is effecting the community. Homeless and hungry, heroin addicts scour the streets like vampires looking for blood. Many people fail to realise the toll heroin prohibition is taking on the community. Note these following points
1. The only reason why people die of heroin over-doses is because the production of heroin is illegal and unsupervised this leaves more chance for adulterants to make its way into street heroin. Also dosages are often wrong due to the unprofessionalism of the producers.
Solution: Legalisation of heroin would mean a massive decrease in the amount of people who overdose. Heroin would be produced to meet government qualitative and quantitative standards.
2. The average heroin addicts spends $100 a day to keep up a heroin habit. This is because the producers realise the high addictive potential of heroin and they choose to exploit it in order to make more profits.
Solution: legalisation would mean the government would sell heroin from pharmacies under the PBS system, this would lead to a reduction in heroin related crime such as robberies, other assorted theft, even murder. Addicts would also be able to use their money to by food and shelter as many heroin addicts are so addicted that the drug becomes their primary means of living, housing and food often becomes secondary.
3. Most street gangs live on money from drug profits. Legalisation of heroin and other drugs will most likely wipe out gangs and gang crime. In theory the general crime rate will be reduced and we would be living in a more stable and less violent community. This would free up a lot of police time so they would be able to focus on more important crimes such as murder or rape. Less money would be spent on hearing drug - related cases in court.
4. Heroin addiction should be treated like alcohol addiction. Heroin users should be persuaded to attend heroin addiction groups for help to kick their habit, instead of being treated like social pariahs. This would lead to greater social harmony and would make the issue of heroin addiction a less stereotyped occurrence.
Cannabis..
Obvious one.. people think legalising cannabis will open the flood gates.. the Netherlands is a case in point. It is a perfectly normal country with one of the lowest crime rates in europe.. they have legal cannabis... why cant we follow their example.. studys in the netherlands have shown that after legalisation nobody new started the habit of smoking.. so most smokers stayed smokers, and most non-smokers stayed non - smokers. the fact that they have the choice is what matters...
I am currently doing a student documentary exposing prohibition for what it is... ITS ONLY CAUSING MORE HARM!..
write to your MP's
SUMMERY
What are the effects of the Prohibition of Drugs?
So here we are, after 40 years plus of prohibition, with $Billions spent, for what?
Here are the results:
More crime than ever before!
More recreational drug use than ever before!
More anti social behaviour than ever before!
Less trust of government and the political parties than ever!
More anti-drug spending than ever before!
More drug related deaths than ever before!
More drug related medical problems and costs than ever before!
More addicts than ever before!
Etc, etc, etc, etc...
And what is the worst aspect of this prohibition?
Generations of young people have been introduced to criminality, because that is where one gets drugs-from the criminal underworld. Yes, these are the same people who provide protection rackets, sell the worst kind of pornography, pimp for prostitutes, and lead previously good people down the wrong roads in life simply because they become addicted. Our laws actually push our children -our future-into the hands and control of the lowest part of our society. Is this crazy? You're damn right it is!
When in the history of our modern societies was the last time feuding gangs and criminals had battles with machine guns in our streets?
Answer: During the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's!
Well it's all back, and for exactly the same reasons. In the end of course it all comes down to stupidity, and a lack of willingness for governments, media and people generally to let people do what they want to do. The Nanny State knows best! Wrong!
Remember Liberty? Remember how we fought for it in two world wars, and why the slogan of the American Revolution was 'Give me liberty or give me death? Remember??
THE SOLUTION :
The solution to the War on Drugs is so obvious! Why is it not on the lips of EVERY politician?
Here it is:
1. Legalise all drugs
2. Allow people to make/grow their own if they want.
3. Classify drugs between those requiring medical/pharmaceutical prescription and lighter drugs that can be sold more openly (such as marijuana and alcohol)
4. Only allow persons of 18 years and older or another legally determined age to legally purchase drugs. Harder drugs would be sold by Pharmacies/Chemists, and only after a consultation to ensure users are aware of risks and to determine safe dosages. Marijuana could be sold from liquor stores/offlicences as alcohol is now
5. Enforce quality standards on all drugs
6. Treat Addiction as an illness, and provide medical services to help addicts beat their problem.
7. Tax drugs and use the income to fund drug use training in schools, quality enforcement, addiction assistance/medical help for addicts, and medical/pharmaceutical training
8. Make it illegal for anyone to supply drugs to minors, with harsh penalties (say 1 years mandatory community service followed by 10 years in prison)
9. Impose harsh penalties (large fines, community service and imprisonment) on anyone who causes harm to anyone else whilst under the influence of drugs. No distinction is made between alcohol and other drugs. Driving whilst under the influence of drugs and alcohol should be treated as a major offence, whether someone is injured or not. It is effectively attempted manslaughter, at the very minimum. Big fines along with compulsory re-education and community service (a substantial amount of it-like 2 years) should be followed by a mandatory minimum jail term for any subsequent offence.
10. Make the giving of drugs to another person without their consent a serious criminal assault, punishable by a combination of prison and mandatory community service.
THE RESULTS :
Our proposed solution would make a very clear statement to everyone: If you are of legally consenting age, you can do what you want to yourself, so long as you don't cause harm, intentionally or not, to anyone else. If you use drugs, and do cause harm, or do something whilst under the influence of drugs, such as drive a vehicle, which could cause harm, then you are in big trouble.
As a civilisation we need to respect individual rights; as individuals we need to ensure we respect the rights of others, and by our actions not do harm to anyone else. With freedom comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes accountability.
By legalising drugs and items 1-10 above, we would be doing the following:
1. People wishing to use drugs could do so without being a criminal
2. Children would not come into contact with the criminal underworld like they do now. Life would revert to a situation where most people would have nothing at all to do with crime.
3. Drug deaths and medical costs would decline radically because drugs would be quality controlled, and not mixed with harmful substances which cause most of the medical problems. Overdoses would be very rare, as users would know their correct doses.
4. All the money made by drug traffickers would stay in the mainstream of society, and not go to funding other criminal activities.
5. Street crime would virtually disappear, along with its main cause, getting money so an addict can fund their next fix.
6. The growing division in our society between the police and people generally would reverse, as so-called 'victimless crimes' would no longer be illegal.
7. Instead of £$Billions each year going to criminals, governments could collect taxes on drugs sold legitimately through off-licenses, drug stores, pharmacies and liquor stores. You can bet the government would like this! Wake up you politicians out there!
8. A new respect for individual rights would invigorate our society
9. Driving under the influence of any drug would be seen as a serious crime, requiring recompense to the community, even if no one had been hurt.
10. The fascination of drugs to children, part of which is driven by its present illegality and anti-establishmentary disposition, would reduce dramatically. Drugs could be openly discussed, and whilst experimentation would never stop (as it never has with tobacco or alcohol), the interest in the harder drugs in particular would decline, as their 'on the street' illegal connection through drug dealers would cease.
11. Our streets would be safe again, with no need for gang wars over drug territories, etc.
OTHER OPINIONs from www.stopthedrugwar.org
"Dear Judge King:
I write you from a different corner of the world of law than the one you oversee for the District of Columbia: the community of advocates striving to change laws and policies. For the past ten years, I have worked as founder and executive director of StopTheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet), an organization which calls for an end to prohibition and the so-called "war on drugs."
It is with sadness for our country, but hope for its future, that I write to inform you that conscience does not permit me to appear for jury service as your court has directed.
US drug policy is in a state of moral and humanitarian crisis, shaming us before history: Half a million nonviolent drug offenders clog our prisons and jails. Mandatory minimum sentences and inflexible sentencing guidelines condemn numerous low-level offenders to years or decades behind bars, often based solely on the word of compensated, confidential informants. Profiling and other racial or economic disparities assault the dignity and safety of our poor and minorities and deny them equal justice. Overall, criminalization has become a reflexive, default reaction to social problems, as opposed to its more limited, proper role as a last resort after other methods have failed. As a result, more than two million people are imprisoned in the United States, the highest incarceration rate of any nation.
The external consequences of the drug laws wreak a devastating toll on large segments of our society and on other countries: Prohibition creates a lucrative black market that soaks our inner cities in violence and disorder, and lures young people into lives of crime. Laws criminalizing syringe possession, and the overall milieu of underground drug use and sales, encourage needle sharing and increase the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. Our drug war in the Andes fuels a continuing civil war in Colombia, with prohibition-generated illicit drug profits enabling its escalation. Thousands of Americans die from drug overdoses or poisonings by adulterants every year, most of their deaths preventable through the quality-controlled market that would exist if drugs were legal. Physicians' justifiable fear of running afoul of law enforcers causes large numbers of Americans to go un- or under-treated for intractable chronic pain. And frustration over the failure of the drug war, together with the lack of dialogue on prohibition, distorts the policymaking process, leading to ever more intrusive governmental interventions and ever greater dilution of the core American values of freedom, privacy and fairness.
Drug policies have significantly driven a deep corrosion of the ethics and principles underlying our system of justice: Police officers routinely violate constitutional rights to make drug busts, often committing perjury to secure convictions; or resort to trickery and manipulation to cause individuals to give up their rights, enabled by an intricate web of legalistic court rulings stretching the letter of the law while betraying its spirit. Manipulation of evidence and process is standard procedure. Many prosecutors, though thankfully not all, treat their position as a stepping stone to elected office, subjugating their oaths to seek justice to a political calculus based instead on individual career advancement. Corruption and misconduct among enforcers and within agencies is widespread. And all these problems, while not officially sanctioned, are in practice largely tolerated: criminal prosecution for police abuse is the exception, and disbarment for prosecutorial misconduct is almost unheard of. Meanwhile, false or unfair convictions occur with unacknowledged frequency, with persons thus victimized often spending years in prison while seeking exoneration.
Jurors in the United States cannot therefore confidently rely on the information we are provided for deciding criminal cases. We cannot know if we have been told the whole truth of a case – as in the trials of Ed Rosenthal and Bryan Epis, whom California jurors convicted without knowing they were medical marijuana providers. We cannot trust the testimony of witnesses for the state to be truthful and balanced; for example, Andrew Chambers, a "super-snitch" used by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for numerous prosecutions, even after a court found him to be a repeat perjurer. We are not permitted knowledge of the possible consequences a defendant may face if we vote to convict – and in a society that hands out decades-long punishments as a routine matter, and which fails to provide adequate safety or medical care to our incarcerated, we cannot have faith that a judge will be able, even if willing, to pronounce a sentence that is just. We are instructed to decide verdicts based solely on facts, showing no consideration to larger moral principles, with those daring to inform potential jurors of their power to do otherwise themselves subjected to criminalization to an increasing degree. And we subsidize the injustices by providing our time for mere travel cost as members of the jury pool, and for less than a living wage while serving as jurors on cases.
We in the District of Columbia have attempted multiple times to effect modest changes to our drug policy, only to have our voices rebuffed or silenced. A voter initiative to permit medical use of marijuana, Measure 63, was struck from our ballot by Congress; and an initiative to divert a limited class of offenders from jail into treatment, Measure 62, which the electorate of the District approved overwhelmingly, was blocked from being implemented by a court, in a proceeding initiated at the behest of our own Mayor. Despite a significant degree of reform sentiment among District residents, our criminal justice policies largely parallel the unceasing arrest and incarceration program of the nation as a whole. Indeed, our justice system is heavily influenced by a Congress that makes use of our taxes but affords us no voting representation within its ranks, and by a federal enforcement bureaucracy which this Congress funds and to which it has granted substantial authority over our local criminal justice matters.
None of the foregoing is intended to reflect any condemnation or disrespect of your office or profession – and no such sentiment is harbored toward the son of Rufus King II, a great crusader for justice and a member of my organization. I take heart from your tenure as well as from the efforts of the majority of individuals working in the criminal justice system who strive with integrity to serve the public weal. But judges and jurors alike are in the grip of larger political and social forces; and the moral obligations of the private citizen vs. the official duties of the appointed public servant are not always one and the same.
I do not lightly exclude myself from jury service, which in a just society I would consider a privilege and honor. But while the past ten years have seen some encouraging developments in drug policy reform, the fundamental punitive, prohibitionist focus of the government's anti-drug program remains unchanged, as does the extremity of its execution and the corrupting toll it takes on the administration of justice as a whole. On that latter concern, I also do not dismiss the need for, or the validity of, legitimate laws protecting safety and property, even in the face of injustice in their administration; the District has a defensible need for jurors to serve on such cases, and I do not call for that process to cease or wait.
But the untrustworthiness of the system in its overview, a result to a significant degree of the drug war, presents potential jurors with a moral dilemma whose resolution lies beyond their power: to serve, at least on cases involving laws that are just in and of themselves, but risking committing wrong by enabling the system to commit an injustice that they cannot reliably identify in advance (a significant possibility for any juror in the current state of affairs), and in any case still facilitating injustice indirectly by enlarging the total size of the available juror pool; or to commit a different wrong by refusing to serve even on cases involving such laws (the system's overall unreliability being a valid justification for such refusal in and of itself), but continuing to receive the benefits of the protection which those laws provide.
It may be that the lesser wrong, and the greater good, lie in refusing to serve a corrupted system entirely, in hopes of, through such a choice, provoking needed discussion and increasing the public and political will for reform. As the great American philosopher and abolitionist, Henry David Thoreau, expounded in his famous essay Civil Disobedience, "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of... even the most enormous wrong... but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he give it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support."
My service as a juror in the District of Columbia would directly or indirectly support injustice, and would help to fuel the illusion that drug prohibition serves the health and safety of the public; when in reality only some form of legalization can adequately address the combined harms of drugs and drug prohibition, which in the currently one-dimensional public dialogue are commonly attributed only to drugs; and when in reality only some form of legalization can satisfy the fundamental obligation of society to respect individual freedom while requiring individual responsibility.
Lastly, should I report to your court as a potential juror, it is an all but foregone conclusion that my profession, which was asked of me on the juror registration form, would cause me not to be selected for a jury, as has happened in the past. Those of us who place greater importance on conscience and individual justice than on the enactments of legislatures, and who do so outspokenly, are effectively disenfranchised from jury service for this reason. For me to report as a potential juror, then, would amount to participation in a game, devaluing both the system you administer and the principles to which I ascribe.
For all these reasons, I have determined that unjust drug laws, and the corrosion wrought by the drug war on the criminal justice system as a whole, compel me to conscientiously refuse jury service. I take this action with knowledge and acceptance of the possible consequences, and request no special consideration.
Respectfully,
David Borden, Executive Director, DRCNet/StopTheDrugWar.org, and citizen of the District of Columbia
Cc: Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court "
I am a strong advocate of ending prohibition. In order to do this, we must encourage the media to promote positive drug stories. The only reason people usually die of ecstacy intoxicity is if they are #1. Dumb, #2. Fallen prey to black market dealers cutting costs. Solution: If ecstacy were legalised the government regulate dosages and quality.. people would be able to make an informed choice about the right dosages reducing the risk of dumb people intentionally over dosing.. regulating legal MDMA would totally cut out meth labs.. reducing gang crime.. pure MDMA is relitivly physically harmless.. 1 in 100,000 people have a fatal recation to MDMA.. 1 in 10,000 people are allergic to strawberries.. does that mean we should ban strawberries? prohibition dosnt make sence.. protest for your rights.. please consider the following :
Alcohol and tobacca Many people think of them as an innocent drug. But is it? Alcohol and tobacco kill more people worldwide then all illegal drugs put together, yet it is socially acceptable to drink and not think twice about its effects. Prohibition of alcohol has proven a mistake in the past, just like prohibition of other drugs are now. We only have to walk down the streets of Melbourne to see how prohibition is effecting the community. Homeless and hungry, heroin addicts scour the streets like vampires looking for blood. Many people fail to realise the toll heroin prohibition is taking on the community. Note these following points
1. The only reason why people die of heroin over-doses is because the production of heroin is illegal and unsupervised this leaves more chance for adulterants to make its way into street heroin. Also dosages are often wrong due to the unprofessionalism of the producers.
Solution: Legalisation of heroin would mean a massive decrease in the amount of people who overdose. Heroin would be produced to meet government qualitative and quantitative standards.
2. The average heroin addicts spends $100 a day to keep up a heroin habit. This is because the producers realise the high addictive potential of heroin and they choose to exploit it in order to make more profits.
Solution: legalisation would mean the government would sell heroin from pharmacies under the PBS system, this would lead to a reduction in heroin related crime such as robberies, other assorted theft, even murder. Addicts would also be able to use their money to by food and shelter as many heroin addicts are so addicted that the drug becomes their primary means of living, housing and food often becomes secondary.
3. Most street gangs live on money from drug profits. Legalisation of heroin and other drugs will most likely wipe out gangs and gang crime. In theory the general crime rate will be reduced and we would be living in a more stable and less violent community. This would free up a lot of police time so they would be able to focus on more important crimes such as murder or rape. Less money would be spent on hearing drug - related cases in court.
4. Heroin addiction should be treated like alcohol addiction. Heroin users should be persuaded to attend heroin addiction groups for help to kick their habit, instead of being treated like social pariahs. This would lead to greater social harmony and would make the issue of heroin addiction a less stereotyped occurrence.
Cannabis..
Obvious one.. people think legalising cannabis will open the flood gates.. the Netherlands is a case in point. It is a perfectly normal country with one of the lowest crime rates in europe.. they have legal cannabis... why cant we follow their example.. studys in the netherlands have shown that after legalisation nobody new started the habit of smoking.. so most smokers stayed smokers, and most non-smokers stayed non - smokers. the fact that they have the choice is what matters...
I am currently doing a student documentary exposing prohibition for what it is... ITS ONLY CAUSING MORE HARM!..
write to your MP's
SUMMERY
What are the effects of the Prohibition of Drugs?
So here we are, after 40 years plus of prohibition, with $Billions spent, for what?
Here are the results:
More crime than ever before!
More recreational drug use than ever before!
More anti social behaviour than ever before!
Less trust of government and the political parties than ever!
More anti-drug spending than ever before!
More drug related deaths than ever before!
More drug related medical problems and costs than ever before!
More addicts than ever before!
Etc, etc, etc, etc...
And what is the worst aspect of this prohibition?
Generations of young people have been introduced to criminality, because that is where one gets drugs-from the criminal underworld. Yes, these are the same people who provide protection rackets, sell the worst kind of pornography, pimp for prostitutes, and lead previously good people down the wrong roads in life simply because they become addicted. Our laws actually push our children -our future-into the hands and control of the lowest part of our society. Is this crazy? You're damn right it is!
When in the history of our modern societies was the last time feuding gangs and criminals had battles with machine guns in our streets?
Answer: During the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's!
Well it's all back, and for exactly the same reasons. In the end of course it all comes down to stupidity, and a lack of willingness for governments, media and people generally to let people do what they want to do. The Nanny State knows best! Wrong!
Remember Liberty? Remember how we fought for it in two world wars, and why the slogan of the American Revolution was 'Give me liberty or give me death? Remember??
THE SOLUTION :
The solution to the War on Drugs is so obvious! Why is it not on the lips of EVERY politician?
Here it is:
1. Legalise all drugs
2. Allow people to make/grow their own if they want.
3. Classify drugs between those requiring medical/pharmaceutical prescription and lighter drugs that can be sold more openly (such as marijuana and alcohol)
4. Only allow persons of 18 years and older or another legally determined age to legally purchase drugs. Harder drugs would be sold by Pharmacies/Chemists, and only after a consultation to ensure users are aware of risks and to determine safe dosages. Marijuana could be sold from liquor stores/offlicences as alcohol is now
5. Enforce quality standards on all drugs
6. Treat Addiction as an illness, and provide medical services to help addicts beat their problem.
7. Tax drugs and use the income to fund drug use training in schools, quality enforcement, addiction assistance/medical help for addicts, and medical/pharmaceutical training
8. Make it illegal for anyone to supply drugs to minors, with harsh penalties (say 1 years mandatory community service followed by 10 years in prison)
9. Impose harsh penalties (large fines, community service and imprisonment) on anyone who causes harm to anyone else whilst under the influence of drugs. No distinction is made between alcohol and other drugs. Driving whilst under the influence of drugs and alcohol should be treated as a major offence, whether someone is injured or not. It is effectively attempted manslaughter, at the very minimum. Big fines along with compulsory re-education and community service (a substantial amount of it-like 2 years) should be followed by a mandatory minimum jail term for any subsequent offence.
10. Make the giving of drugs to another person without their consent a serious criminal assault, punishable by a combination of prison and mandatory community service.
THE RESULTS :
Our proposed solution would make a very clear statement to everyone: If you are of legally consenting age, you can do what you want to yourself, so long as you don't cause harm, intentionally or not, to anyone else. If you use drugs, and do cause harm, or do something whilst under the influence of drugs, such as drive a vehicle, which could cause harm, then you are in big trouble.
As a civilisation we need to respect individual rights; as individuals we need to ensure we respect the rights of others, and by our actions not do harm to anyone else. With freedom comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes accountability.
By legalising drugs and items 1-10 above, we would be doing the following:
1. People wishing to use drugs could do so without being a criminal
2. Children would not come into contact with the criminal underworld like they do now. Life would revert to a situation where most people would have nothing at all to do with crime.
3. Drug deaths and medical costs would decline radically because drugs would be quality controlled, and not mixed with harmful substances which cause most of the medical problems. Overdoses would be very rare, as users would know their correct doses.
4. All the money made by drug traffickers would stay in the mainstream of society, and not go to funding other criminal activities.
5. Street crime would virtually disappear, along with its main cause, getting money so an addict can fund their next fix.
6. The growing division in our society between the police and people generally would reverse, as so-called 'victimless crimes' would no longer be illegal.
7. Instead of £$Billions each year going to criminals, governments could collect taxes on drugs sold legitimately through off-licenses, drug stores, pharmacies and liquor stores. You can bet the government would like this! Wake up you politicians out there!
8. A new respect for individual rights would invigorate our society
9. Driving under the influence of any drug would be seen as a serious crime, requiring recompense to the community, even if no one had been hurt.
10. The fascination of drugs to children, part of which is driven by its present illegality and anti-establishmentary disposition, would reduce dramatically. Drugs could be openly discussed, and whilst experimentation would never stop (as it never has with tobacco or alcohol), the interest in the harder drugs in particular would decline, as their 'on the street' illegal connection through drug dealers would cease.
11. Our streets would be safe again, with no need for gang wars over drug territories, etc.
OTHER OPINIONs from www.stopthedrugwar.org
"Dear Judge King:
I write you from a different corner of the world of law than the one you oversee for the District of Columbia: the community of advocates striving to change laws and policies. For the past ten years, I have worked as founder and executive director of StopTheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet), an organization which calls for an end to prohibition and the so-called "war on drugs."
It is with sadness for our country, but hope for its future, that I write to inform you that conscience does not permit me to appear for jury service as your court has directed.
US drug policy is in a state of moral and humanitarian crisis, shaming us before history: Half a million nonviolent drug offenders clog our prisons and jails. Mandatory minimum sentences and inflexible sentencing guidelines condemn numerous low-level offenders to years or decades behind bars, often based solely on the word of compensated, confidential informants. Profiling and other racial or economic disparities assault the dignity and safety of our poor and minorities and deny them equal justice. Overall, criminalization has become a reflexive, default reaction to social problems, as opposed to its more limited, proper role as a last resort after other methods have failed. As a result, more than two million people are imprisoned in the United States, the highest incarceration rate of any nation.
The external consequences of the drug laws wreak a devastating toll on large segments of our society and on other countries: Prohibition creates a lucrative black market that soaks our inner cities in violence and disorder, and lures young people into lives of crime. Laws criminalizing syringe possession, and the overall milieu of underground drug use and sales, encourage needle sharing and increase the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. Our drug war in the Andes fuels a continuing civil war in Colombia, with prohibition-generated illicit drug profits enabling its escalation. Thousands of Americans die from drug overdoses or poisonings by adulterants every year, most of their deaths preventable through the quality-controlled market that would exist if drugs were legal. Physicians' justifiable fear of running afoul of law enforcers causes large numbers of Americans to go un- or under-treated for intractable chronic pain. And frustration over the failure of the drug war, together with the lack of dialogue on prohibition, distorts the policymaking process, leading to ever more intrusive governmental interventions and ever greater dilution of the core American values of freedom, privacy and fairness.
Drug policies have significantly driven a deep corrosion of the ethics and principles underlying our system of justice: Police officers routinely violate constitutional rights to make drug busts, often committing perjury to secure convictions; or resort to trickery and manipulation to cause individuals to give up their rights, enabled by an intricate web of legalistic court rulings stretching the letter of the law while betraying its spirit. Manipulation of evidence and process is standard procedure. Many prosecutors, though thankfully not all, treat their position as a stepping stone to elected office, subjugating their oaths to seek justice to a political calculus based instead on individual career advancement. Corruption and misconduct among enforcers and within agencies is widespread. And all these problems, while not officially sanctioned, are in practice largely tolerated: criminal prosecution for police abuse is the exception, and disbarment for prosecutorial misconduct is almost unheard of. Meanwhile, false or unfair convictions occur with unacknowledged frequency, with persons thus victimized often spending years in prison while seeking exoneration.
Jurors in the United States cannot therefore confidently rely on the information we are provided for deciding criminal cases. We cannot know if we have been told the whole truth of a case – as in the trials of Ed Rosenthal and Bryan Epis, whom California jurors convicted without knowing they were medical marijuana providers. We cannot trust the testimony of witnesses for the state to be truthful and balanced; for example, Andrew Chambers, a "super-snitch" used by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for numerous prosecutions, even after a court found him to be a repeat perjurer. We are not permitted knowledge of the possible consequences a defendant may face if we vote to convict – and in a society that hands out decades-long punishments as a routine matter, and which fails to provide adequate safety or medical care to our incarcerated, we cannot have faith that a judge will be able, even if willing, to pronounce a sentence that is just. We are instructed to decide verdicts based solely on facts, showing no consideration to larger moral principles, with those daring to inform potential jurors of their power to do otherwise themselves subjected to criminalization to an increasing degree. And we subsidize the injustices by providing our time for mere travel cost as members of the jury pool, and for less than a living wage while serving as jurors on cases.
We in the District of Columbia have attempted multiple times to effect modest changes to our drug policy, only to have our voices rebuffed or silenced. A voter initiative to permit medical use of marijuana, Measure 63, was struck from our ballot by Congress; and an initiative to divert a limited class of offenders from jail into treatment, Measure 62, which the electorate of the District approved overwhelmingly, was blocked from being implemented by a court, in a proceeding initiated at the behest of our own Mayor. Despite a significant degree of reform sentiment among District residents, our criminal justice policies largely parallel the unceasing arrest and incarceration program of the nation as a whole. Indeed, our justice system is heavily influenced by a Congress that makes use of our taxes but affords us no voting representation within its ranks, and by a federal enforcement bureaucracy which this Congress funds and to which it has granted substantial authority over our local criminal justice matters.
None of the foregoing is intended to reflect any condemnation or disrespect of your office or profession – and no such sentiment is harbored toward the son of Rufus King II, a great crusader for justice and a member of my organization. I take heart from your tenure as well as from the efforts of the majority of individuals working in the criminal justice system who strive with integrity to serve the public weal. But judges and jurors alike are in the grip of larger political and social forces; and the moral obligations of the private citizen vs. the official duties of the appointed public servant are not always one and the same.
I do not lightly exclude myself from jury service, which in a just society I would consider a privilege and honor. But while the past ten years have seen some encouraging developments in drug policy reform, the fundamental punitive, prohibitionist focus of the government's anti-drug program remains unchanged, as does the extremity of its execution and the corrupting toll it takes on the administration of justice as a whole. On that latter concern, I also do not dismiss the need for, or the validity of, legitimate laws protecting safety and property, even in the face of injustice in their administration; the District has a defensible need for jurors to serve on such cases, and I do not call for that process to cease or wait.
But the untrustworthiness of the system in its overview, a result to a significant degree of the drug war, presents potential jurors with a moral dilemma whose resolution lies beyond their power: to serve, at least on cases involving laws that are just in and of themselves, but risking committing wrong by enabling the system to commit an injustice that they cannot reliably identify in advance (a significant possibility for any juror in the current state of affairs), and in any case still facilitating injustice indirectly by enlarging the total size of the available juror pool; or to commit a different wrong by refusing to serve even on cases involving such laws (the system's overall unreliability being a valid justification for such refusal in and of itself), but continuing to receive the benefits of the protection which those laws provide.
It may be that the lesser wrong, and the greater good, lie in refusing to serve a corrupted system entirely, in hopes of, through such a choice, provoking needed discussion and increasing the public and political will for reform. As the great American philosopher and abolitionist, Henry David Thoreau, expounded in his famous essay Civil Disobedience, "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of... even the most enormous wrong... but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he give it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support."
My service as a juror in the District of Columbia would directly or indirectly support injustice, and would help to fuel the illusion that drug prohibition serves the health and safety of the public; when in reality only some form of legalization can adequately address the combined harms of drugs and drug prohibition, which in the currently one-dimensional public dialogue are commonly attributed only to drugs; and when in reality only some form of legalization can satisfy the fundamental obligation of society to respect individual freedom while requiring individual responsibility.
Lastly, should I report to your court as a potential juror, it is an all but foregone conclusion that my profession, which was asked of me on the juror registration form, would cause me not to be selected for a jury, as has happened in the past. Those of us who place greater importance on conscience and individual justice than on the enactments of legislatures, and who do so outspokenly, are effectively disenfranchised from jury service for this reason. For me to report as a potential juror, then, would amount to participation in a game, devaluing both the system you administer and the principles to which I ascribe.
For all these reasons, I have determined that unjust drug laws, and the corrosion wrought by the drug war on the criminal justice system as a whole, compel me to conscientiously refuse jury service. I take this action with knowledge and acceptance of the possible consequences, and request no special consideration.
Respectfully,
David Borden, Executive Director, DRCNet/StopTheDrugWar.org, and citizen of the District of Columbia
Cc: Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court "
Last edited:
