From our archives of Tom's USENET posts. These posts data back to the early 1990s; the author may have mellowed with age since these were written, but the basic views remain. (Please note that web links inside this document may be broken.)
Subject: Plans for ending drug prohibtion
Author: Thomas Swiss
Date: 1998/10/23
Forum: balt.general
Posted on: 1998/10/23
Message-ID: <70qkjh$dt5@mail.bcpl.net>
Followup-To: poster
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:15:35 EDT
Newsgroups: balt.general,talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Baltimore County Public Library
References: <36172917.39AC@-REMOVE_THIS-erols.com> <8992B3669A85ECDE.57353D120D488D79.0F16B8317C63DB3F@library-proxy.airnews.net> <70o53s$ojd@mail.bcpl.net><9AD2CE781CD4FF0E.AA7DBDF71F3FDFB7.E2118591E0300FF4@library-proxy.airnews.net>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net
X-Trace: news.abs.net 909170135 204.255.212.10 (Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:15:35 EDT)
(Note Newsgroups: and Followup-To:)
In article <9AD2CE781CD4FF0E.AA7DBDF71F3FDFB7.E2118591E0300FF4@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Lee E. Brown wrote:
>
>Dense? No. Is it that I'm not saying what you want to hear, or is that
>you're not hearing what I'm saying? I understand the differences quite well.
>I also understand that decriminalization only solves PART of the problem, and
>I think that what lies after that is not well explored. "Decriminalize first,
>and sort the rest out later" does not sound like a well-developed social
>policy. Dig?
Well, there are many plans for what to do after ending drug prohibition,
ranging from outright libertarian "sell anything to anyone so long as you
aren't fraudulent", to the "consulting pharmacist" model where drug users
would need to obtain a sort of license certifying that they had passed
a drug education course.
In my opinion, the libertarian option is fine, but won't garner enough
support to come about. For your entertainment, then, I will briefly present
the Thomas M. Swiss Model of Drug Policy, a compromise plan meant to be
conservative enough to draw support, libertarian enough to remove the state
from personal decisions, and simple enough to be implemented tomorrow. (It
also slices, dices, and takes inches off your waist and hips. Order now!)
Elements are drawn from many different sources, including the consulting
pharmacist and harm reduction paradigms. My objective here is really just
to show that there has indeed been a lot of thought put into what to do
after prohibition.
So, assuming they give me that magic wand that makes my word law...
1) ALL persons imprisoned for simple drug possession or simple sale
(that it, no violence or fraud involved) are immediately released. All
criminal records for these "crimes" are expunged. Simple possession of any
drug is no longer a crime. (Ideally, this is part of a larger movement to
remove criminal penalties for all consensual acts - prostitution, gambling,
and so on - and reparations are made for the harm done by these immoral
laws. But that's another topic.)
2) We classify drugs into three broad categories: soft, hard, and
medical use only. To start with, soft drugs would include all those found
in plants or produced by natural processes: beer, wine, cannabis, coca,
psilocybin, peyote, etcetera. Hard drugs would any refined or processed
drugs, or artificial ones: hard liquor, heroin, cocaine, LSD, hash oil,
PCP, ketamine, and most of the rainbow of pills behind the pharmacist's
counter. Artificial or refined drugs that were proven to be of low abuse
potential would later be moved into the "soft" category; LSD or MDMA might
fit the bill. Medical use only drugs would be those with no recreational
use, whose misuse could harm people other than the user. Antibiotics would
be in this category (misuse causes resistant strains of bacteria); so might
"date rape" drugs.
Soft drugs could be purchased by anyone eighteen years of age or
older, from licensed sellers. The distribution of soft drugs would
generally be regulated by extending the current structures that currently
regulate cigarettes and liquor. Soft drugs would be lightly taxed, and part
of the tax would fund education and PSA campaigns to discourage
irresponsible use.
It would not be a crime in and of itself for parents to provide these
drugs to their children; thus, giving a glass of wine to your kid on
Thanksgiving would no longer be a crime (as it is now), and parents could
let curious adolescents try these drugs UNDER SUPERVISION, removing initial
drug experiences from the peer pressure that leads to abuse. Parents would
have civil liability for allowing their children to abuse these drugs.
Hard drugs would be available by prescription, or to those having
passed a drug education class. Sellers of hard drugs would need additional
licensing, including training on how to steer people away from abusive
patterns of drug use. There'd probably be different sub-categories of hard
drugs with different levels of requirements; hard liquor would require a
few hours of educating drinkers and a bit of training for bartenders to
learn when to cut them off, whereas heroin might require users to go
through dozens of hours of education and sellers to be pharmacists.
Providing hard drugs to children, except by prescription, would be illegal.
Doctors could prescribe maintenance doses of hard drugs for addicts;
these prescriptions would not require the drug education classes. Hard
drugs would be taxed at a higher level - although not high enough to create
a significant black market - and the taxes mostly used to fund addiction
treatment and drug education programs. Prescriptions would not be taxed.
In general, the distribution of hard drugs would regulated by
extending the current structures that regulate prescription drugs.
Medical use only drugs would be available only by prescription.
3) Addiction treatment would be available free of charge to anyone,
funded by taxes on drugs and possibly by the criminal justice expenses we
would realize.
4) Needle exchange, needle exchange, needle exchange.
5) Driving or operating any hazardous machine while impaired - by
recreational or prescription drugs, by lack of sleep, for whatever reason -
would be a crime.
6) Persons on parole or probation may be barred from drug use and/or
forced to undergo addiction treatment, if appropriate to the circumstances.
7) Drugging someone without their knowledge or consent would be a
serious crime, of roughly the same magnitude as rape.
8) Being under the influence of a drug is not an excuse for committing
any crime; however, drug abuse or addition may be taken into account when
considering how to rehabilitate a convict. (I'm also waving the magic wand
over the penal system to make rehabilitation, rather than warehousing and
education in criminal behavior, its primary goal; but that's another
topic.)
That's a brief summary of my thoughts on a workable plan that could
draw support. There are many others.
===Tom Swiss/tms(at)infamous.net===http://www.infamous.net==="Born to die"===
"What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"He who has the courage to laugh is almost as much a master of the world
as he who is ready to die." -- Giacomo Leopardi
Recent comments
1 week 15 hours ago
2 weeks 2 days ago
3 weeks 3 days ago
3 weeks 5 days ago
4 weeks 2 days ago
4 weeks 2 days ago
7 weeks 5 days ago
8 weeks 3 days ago
10 weeks 6 days ago
11 weeks 9 hours ago