Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:44:21 -0400 From: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Subject: Charles Platt & Jim Warren on Legalization To: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: Here are two comments from two of my favorite (I have many favorites, including you) subscribers to Freematt's Alerts. Jim's response follows Charles. Charles Platt has worn several interesting hats over the years, originally from Britain, Charles is a distinguished science fiction/non-fiction technology author and editor. He currently is a senior writer for Wired Magazine. Charles has the current May, 2001 cover story "The Future Will Be Fast But Not Free". See: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.05/broadband.html.
Jim Warren is one of those pesky silicon valley millionaires I keep reading about in the press. You can view Jim's home at http://www.barlst8.com/mountain/mountain.htm . Jim's a former college math department chair and entrepreneur. Jim's a Contributing Editor & technology public-policy columnist, MicroTimes Magazine and DataCast founder/owner. A recipient of the Playboy Foundation's Hugh Hefner First-Amendment Award; Soc.of Prof.Journalists-Nor.Calif.'s James Madison Freedom-of-Information Award; founded InfoWorld; Dr. Dobb's Journal; Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conferences; Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer Award (in its first year). I just hope he hasn't blown all of his dough on wine, women and song, like I have <grin>.]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:09:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com> To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> Cc: <cp@panix.com> Subject: legalization
I live in a remote area of Arizona in which many residents (probably the majority) would be dismissed as rednecks, conservatives, and/or fundamentalists by my former neighbors in New York City. At the local bar I have raised the issue of drug legalization from time to time, and while outright legalization of all drugs causes a concerned response, there is absolutely no doubt that people are unhappy with current law enforcement on soft drugs. The reason is simple: Almost everyone has a kid who has been in trouble with the law because of drug use. You would be amazed, how many teenagers here are on probation (or have served actual jail time). Now, there are some hardcore disciplinarian parents who might say, "He broke the law and he deserved what happened to him." But I suspect they are the minority. Many people realize that marijuana use simply should not be punished by inarceration--especially when their own basically decent kids are involved.
There's a lot of heavy alcohol use here too, and AA holds meetings in even the smallest communities. If AA dared to advertise itself more as an "all drugs" rehabilitation group, I believe this would encourage people to oppose legal remedies more vigorously. All they need is a good alternative to punitive measures.
--CP
###
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:07:57 -0700 To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com> Subject: Re: Declan McCullagh Report from NORML conference in Washington, DC
Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> wrote: >I think this is THE decade to push for relegalization.]
Or at least decriminalization. (I never have understood what the difference was. I think it has mostly to do with political ass-covering. OR the concept of "decriminalization" assumes the principle that everything IS criminal, unless it is DEcriminalized! ;-)
You make a nice but subtle point by phrasing -- that I think you should emphasize in a more overt rant: That many of these drugs USED to BE legal ... thus your use of the much-too-subtle term, relegalization. (O' course, I do often lean towards the sledgehammer approach to making a point. ;-)
O' course, legalization ain't gonna happen -- at least, not for another decade or several. Almost no elected "leaders" will ever DARE to support legalization ... for fear of being labeled "soft on crime" etc etc etc -- instantly by the cops and other *real* "drug lords" who are reaping moumental profits from asset seizures, and quickly echoed by their political opponents ... who would become opponents given just that opportunity, if they weren't already opponents.
I've had exactly these conversations with some state legislators, and with the senior aides to several big-wheel legislators in Californica <sic>. All were completely sympathetic and understanding of the problem and "personally" in favor of it ... and every single one were COMPLETELY unwilling to even CONSIDER "committing political suicide" that way.
One of the major problems: "Nice" drug-users aren't being busted -- and they're the hypocrites who vote. Most of the people who are OVERTLY being impacted (as opposed to the monumental COVERT impact on our taxes and civil liberties) are the poor, the black and the minorities ... and they "don't count" politically.
<sigh>
--jim
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/