Ship of Fools: Drugs Now Legal if User is Employed

Thread: Drugs Now Legal if User is Employed Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026459

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

The title of this thread comes from a 10+ year old article from satirical newspaper "The Onion."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/drugs-now-legal-if-user-is-employed,110/

A quote from a fictional DEA agent: "Stockbrokers, lawyers, English professors... you're not the problem here," said DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson at a White House press conference. "If you are paying taxes and keeping your yard tidy, we're not going to hassle you if you come home from a hard day of work and want to enjoy a little pot or blow. But if, on the other hand, you're one of these lazy, shiftless types hanging out on the street all day looking for your next high, we're coming after you."

So...in light of the recent scandals with crack smoking mayor Rob Ford of Toronto and Co-op Bank Chairman/Methodist minister Paul Flowers recently caught buying crystal meth(odist?) - with neither current in jail or with any charges against them - is there a double standard? When the wealthy and powerful use drugs it's a "mistake" but when the poor do it's "criminal?"

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I think The Guardian got there before you did.

Rob Ford, of course, revels in being a celebrity, and has little interest in the actual job of mayoring. But because he rants well in the Limbaugh manner, there are many people who will vote for him, so there is a reasonable chance that he could run and win the mayoralty again, and continue the job of destroying government. A proper Tea Partier.

The investment manager is obviously someone who can do no wrong, so why make a fuss? [Frown]

(speeling/spellink/spelunking)

[ 19. November 2013, 12:11: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

Hah! Hadn't seen that article but obviously I agree.

So I guess the follow on question is - what is the purpose of our drug laws? Is it to keep drugs out of society, or it to keep drugs out of the hands of "people who can't handle them" e.g. the poor?

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

We (at least in the U.S. - I can't speak for other countries) have been fighting a War on Some Drugs Used by Certain Undesirables for 50 years now; what have we got for our troubles?

A southern border infested with drug cartels in the neighboring states of Mexico? Check.

An inner-city gang problem fueled by illicit drug money? Check.

Rural meth labs contaminating the environment and endangering human life? Check.

A reduction in drug use by, um, anyone? Not so much.

Prohibition of alcohol got us the Mafia; prohibition of marijuana has got us the Crips and Bloods (and a bunch of others).

Add to this the fact that a wealthy or connected person caught with cocaine can expect a slap on the wrist, while a poor person caught with crack (chemically, the same drug) is looking at 10 years in a Federal prison - the WOSDUBCU is a joke. A very bad, harmful, joke. And a drain on the Treasury.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So I guess the follow on question is - what is the purpose of our drug laws? Is it to keep drugs out of society, or it to keep drugs out of the hands of "people who can't handle them" e.g. the poor?

It's to keep drugs from causing society unwanted difficulty. Rich people don't cause as many problems because they can afford the drugs (thus no need to burgle or mug people for drug money), they can afford things besides the drugs (thus no need for society to feed and clothe them) and they have somewhere private and secure in which to get their hit (thus no addicts littering the streets).

It's not just illegal drugs where this is the case, of course. Rich addicts get better treatment than poor addicts no matter what they're addicted to.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So I guess the follow on question is - what is the purpose of our drug laws? Is it to keep drugs out of society, or it to keep drugs out of the hands of "people who can't handle them" e.g. the poor?
It's to keep drugs from causing society unwanted difficulty. Rich people don't cause as many problems because they can afford the drugs (thus no need to burgle or mug people for drug money), they can afford things besides the drugs (thus no need for society to feed and clothe them) and they have somewhere private and secure in which to get their hit (thus no addicts littering the streets).

It's not just illegal drugs where this is the case, of course. Rich addicts get better treatment than poor addicts no matter what they're addicted to.

Their families suffer terribly 'tho. My friend is an ex-cityboy-cocaine user. His family are just about recovering now. Materially they remain well off, but they have suffered in a way I would never want to.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

But the government isn't too concerned about that.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

So I guess the follow on question is - what is the purpose of our drug laws? Is it to keep drugs out of society, or it to keep drugs out of the hands of "people who can't handle them" e.g. the poor?

I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in Canada there are far more resources dedicated to investigating and prosecuting trafficking offences than personal use possession. The reality is that someone who uses only in the privacy of their home, and isn't hanging around high-drug areas to buy their drugs, is much less likely to get busted than the addict on the street corner, or the addict who is committing property crimes to feed their habit. . Which is true of crime generally -- the more public your crimes, the more likely it's going to come to the attention of someone who is going to lay a charge.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
We (at least in the U.S. - I can't speak for other countries) have been fighting a War on Some Drugs Used by Certain Undesirables for 50 years now; what have we got for our troubles?

A southern border infested with drug cartels in the neighboring states of Mexico? Check.

An inner-city gang problem fueled by illicit drug money? Check.

Rural meth labs contaminating the environment and endangering human life? Check.

A reduction in drug use by, um, anyone? Not so much.

Prohibition of alcohol got us the Mafia; prohibition of marijuana has got us the Crips and Bloods (and a bunch of others).

Add to this the fact that a wealthy or connected person caught with cocaine can expect a slap on the wrist, while a poor person caught with crack (chemically, the same drug) is looking at 10 years in a Federal prison - the WOSDUBCU is a joke. A very bad, harmful, joke. And a drain on the Treasury.

Add to that: the highest incarceration rate in the world. Which, for the reasons noted above, has been likened to a new whitewashed (pun intended) version of Jim Crow.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in Canada there are far more resources dedicated to investigating and prosecuting trafficking offences than personal use possession.

Well clearly - hence why someone with a serious personal use problem is still technically mayor of your largest city!

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's to keep drugs from causing society unwanted difficulty. Rich people don't cause as many problems because they can afford the drugs (thus no need to burgle or mug people for drug money), they can afford things besides the drugs (thus no need for society to feed and clothe them) and they have somewhere private and secure in which to get their hit (thus no addicts littering the streets).

It's not just illegal drugs where this is the case, of course. Rich addicts get better treatment than poor addicts no matter what they're addicted to.

Good point. Although I think there's a distinction to be made between well-off drug users, and well-off addicts.

A recreational drug user who maintains a job and family is frankly not a concern to the rest of society in the slightest.

An addict - even a rich one - is going to bring their abuse into work and the home and that is likely to still have negative consequences for society.

I don't know as much about Rev Flowers but based on what Rob Ford's employees have said about his behavior, his violent outbursts, and the fact that he socializes with criminals (link), it seems that his substance use is well into abuse territory. And despite his resources his behavior is still quite damaging.

[fixed link]

[ 19. November 2013, 19:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

And there is still a sizable constituency that thinks RF is the greatest thing since the invention of a bread slicer, and would vote him back in happily. Why? Because like Limbaugh, he does the rant thing ably. (and the drug thing is just a lovable quirk)

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Is this where we point out (in the US at least) that while the majority of drug users are white, the majority of those arrested for drug possession are people of color?

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Mr Flowers has had his house searched by police now, investigating the use of drugs. I think it's a bit early to be commenting that there haven't been any charges.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Mr Flowers has had his house searched by police now, investigating the use of drugs. I think it's a bit early to be commenting that there haven't been any charges.

Good to hear. Let's hope something comes of it. Especially with news today that Rev Flowers has a previous conviction for gross indecency and was made to quit his job as a councillor for accessing inappropriate adult material on their computers.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Is this where we point out (in the US at least) that while the majority of drug users are white, the majority of those arrested for drug possession are people of color?

Exactly - this is where I was going with the comments on the War on Some Drugs Used by Certain Undesirables... [Biased]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Is this where we point out (in the US at least) that while the majority of drug users are white, the majority of those arrested for drug possession are people of color?

Also a good time to point out that a Republican Congressman who voted for drug testing of food stamp recipients, has just been charged with cocaine possession.

So you can't get food stamps if you're snorting blow, but you can work in the House of Representatives!

He has yet to hand in his resignation.

Trey Radel - Drug Testing

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Also a good time to point out that a Republican Congressman who voted for drug testing of food stamp recipients, has just been charged with cocaine possession.

So you can't get food stamps if you're snorting blow, but you can work in the House of Representatives!

The argument could be made that the government doesn't want to directly fund drug abuse (in this case by paying for someone's food so that they have more spare cash to spend on drugs), but is relatively OK with someone spending their own legitimately-earned paycheck on drugs should they choose to do so. There's a difference between someone funding a drug habit on their own and someone funding a drug habit with government assistance.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And there is still a sizable constituency that thinks RF is the greatest thing since the invention of a bread slicer, and would vote him back in happily. Why? Because like Limbaugh, he does the rant thing ably. (and the drug thing is just a lovable quirk)

It probably helps that Mayor of Toronto is a joke position with very little real power. A bit like Mayor of London. If you're going to have a political celebrity hosting luncheons with fat cats and being a rent-a-quote you may as well have a laughable buffoon for the amusement value alone. Boris Johnson could probably get away with a bit of mild crack smoking as well - he could ruff his hair up a bit and mumble some hapless nonsense and everyone would laugh and let him off.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The argument could be made that the government doesn't want to directly fund drug abuse (in this case by paying for someone's food so that they have more spare cash to spend on drugs), but is relatively OK with someone spending their own legitimately-earned paycheck on drugs should they choose to do so.

But the paycheck is from the taxpayer, and the only reason he lives in DC in the first place (where he bought the drugs) is because he's serving in Congress. So I'm not sure how it's materially different.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But the paycheck is from the taxpayer, and the only reason he lives in DC in the first place (where he bought the drugs) is because he's serving in Congress. So I'm not sure how it's materially different.

It's all about expectations. A paycheck is given with the expectation of services rendered, and as long as those services have indeed been rendered the transaction has been completed in accordance with the original terms and what happens with the money from then on is none of the government's business. But a food stamp is given with the expectation that the person will use it to buy food they couldn't otherwise afford, and they are instead using it to free up funds for their drug habit, then the transaction has not been completed according to the original terms and what happens to the money is very much the government's business.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The argument could be made that the government doesn't want to directly fund drug abuse (in this case by paying for someone's food so that they have more spare cash to spend on drugs), but is relatively OK with someone spending their own legitimately-earned paycheck on drugs should they choose to do so.
But the paycheck is from the taxpayer, and the only reason he lives in DC in the first place (where he bought the drugs) is because he's serving in Congress. So I'm not sure how it's materially different.

Hmm, I think following this path is pretty dangerous, seekingsister. Would you really want every public sector worker to have some kind of audit done on how they spend their wages? I think there's plenty that's wrong or questionable about someone in high public office buying / using illegal drugs (the impact on their fitness for work, making connections with organised crime networks etc.), without getting into making value judgments as to the wisdom of their spending habits.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Hmm, I think following this path is pretty dangerous, seekingsister. Would you really want every public sector worker to have some kind of audit done on how they spend their wages?

No, absolutely not. But I don't think food stamp recipients need drug tests either.

I'm not a fan of many drug laws in the West. They are not evenly applied and quite clearly even some of those making the laws do not expect themselves to be bound by the same standards.

So I'm just calling out the congressman's hypocrisy here.

I actually find the habit of US employers to drug test staff and potential new hires unreasonably invasive.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

The rich man has a cellar
And a ready butler by him;
The poor must steer
For a pint of beer
Where the saint can't choose but spy him.

(from Thomas Love Peacock, Rich and Poor)

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

I think the process of screening for drugs when hiring staff in positions so close to the centre of political power is quite reasonable. The public has a right to know that those who advise significant policy makers are not doing so under the influence of drugs.

As well as staff, candidates for election should have drug screenings conducted one week before the election in which they are standing and the results released to the public. Should a positive be detected, the public would then have the right to choose how they vote on an informed basis.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Hmm, I think following this path is pretty dangerous, seekingsister. Would you really want every public sector worker to have some kind of audit done on how they spend their wages?
No, absolutely not. But I don't think food stamp recipients need drug tests either.

But what about Marvin the Martian's point here? I think he's neatly set out the difference between a salary being paid and food stamps being given. Mind you, I'm uneasy about drug-testing people who receive benefits, but I think MtM's point is clear and well-made and I don't agree with your charge of hypocrisy.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But what about Marvin the Martian's point here? I think he's neatly set out the difference between a salary being paid and food stamps being given. Mind you, I'm uneasy about drug-testing people who receive benefits, but I think MtM's point is clear and well-made and I don't agree with your charge of hypocrisy.

I accused the congressman of hypocrisy, not MtM. I mostly agree with him on the purpose of drug law enforcement regarding rich vs poor users.

But a government official should not be doing business with known criminals, whether it's drugs or weapons or anything else. If you read other reports, the drug dealer got caught by the DEA and the dealer (presumably in exchange for a deal) said he could deliver a customer who was in Congress. So that means Radel wasn't turning up in a hood and sunglasses; somehow his identity was known to the dealer. That makes him a target for blackmail and for other criminal elements to influence his votes and behavior. This is a much bigger threat to our democracy, than someone on food stamps who's been smoking a joint.

Of course food stamp recipients would still be free to use the most commonly abused drugs in America, which are alcohol and nicotine. I've seen people attempt to steal both out of stores so I don't think they're any better than other drugs in terms of driving a poor person to crime.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I accused the congressman of hypocrisy, not MtM. I mostly agree with him on the purpose of drug law enforcement regarding rich vs poor users.

Sorry, I realise you weren't accusing MtM of hypocrisy but worded my comment very badly... [Hot and Hormonal]

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But a government official should not be doing business with known criminals, whether it's drugs or weapons or anything else... That makes him a target for blackmail and for other criminal elements to influence his votes and behavior.

Yes, I agree that there are many problems with a senior politician (or bank chairperson etc...) - but I just wouldn't want public officials and politicians to have their spending habits subject to general scrutiny. They're being paid an agreed rate to do their job, what they do with that money is up to them, IMO, to the extent that it doesn't affect their ability to do the job well.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0