Theoretic or practical? History or projections?
Firstly, I dont give a rats ass whether the drug dealing created the wealth or not. The point is, by dealing drugs, these people have forfeited the right to live in comfort in society after their time is up. I don't understand the basis for your concern here.
In the first half of the twentieth century, the United States banned the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol. Drunken disorder and violence were plagues to the community, causing immorality (in general) and human harm (to be specific).
We call the period
Prohibition. It was eventually repealed because immorality flourished like never before, and human harm increased, and moved closer to the homes of the innocent people.
We see the same result, in the US, at least, in the Drug War.
If you look into the heart of the American Drug War, it's really hard to tell why drugs are illegal.
• The black market exacerbates disease risk among IV drug users, and the criminalization of drug use makes the confessing of felonies a very distasteful option when it comes to seeking treatment. This has gotten so out of hand that the Republican party threatened Colorado Republicans a few years ago with the withdrawal of party support if they voted to legalize needle exchange. This despite the documented fact that needle exchanges (A) reduce transmission of HIV, Hepatitis, and other diseases, and (B) increase the number of addicts seeking treatment. The Drug War is causing its own problem as far as heroin use is concerned.
• The black market brings violence. A local restaurant owner, Punjabi, recently commented to me that where he comes from, they kill marijuana not because it is a health risk or a drug risk or a moral problem but because it is a "weed" that can kill other crops. However, the criminalization of drugs has pushed marijuana to prices that, depending on your locality, compete with gold. (I have, before, paid more for marijuana than I would have for that weight in gold.) Note: the high spot price (New York) for gold given at
Kitco is $314.80/oz. Marijuana, at its current street price, is running $320-400/oz. When you stop and consider that, aside from the recreational aspect, marijuana includes markets in fuel, fiber/textile, food, and even medicinal. (If marijuana has no medicinal value (per US Congress), why did Unimed Pharmaceuticals
synthesize it as a medicine?) Oh, and, of course, the recreational aspect means that. However, I have only ever met one armed pot dealer in my decade-plus with the drug. On the other hand, Congress passed a sentencing standard for crack cocaine (which is no different from powdered cocaine) which made 5 grams of crack (possession) a federal felony warranting a minimum of five years in prison. With the stakes so high, of course the dealers are armed. The same thing happened with alcohol prohibition.
• The black market destabilizes quality. Sounds silly? As a fan of opium resin, I've had occasion to wonder about its rarity. Of course, with drugs being illegal, we see heroin being the more popular opiate to sell. Economically, it's the more efficient method of distributing opium. But with fierce black market competition and no quality controls, a bad situation can arise. People who overdose on cocaine often do so because, after getting shitty, diluted cocaine over and over (and therefore doing a higher volume to achieve their high), someone sells them really clean blow, and so they blow their mind, their heart, whatever (by taking the same amount of more potent stuff). In Portland, Oregon, a couple years ago, the situation almost became epidemic when heroin junkies started turning up dead in greater numbers than expected. All of them were overdosing on
really good heroin. Super-clean. Not at all what they were used to seeing on the market. After a short time, the problem went away. What it actually resembles in the drug subculture is some idiot who had no idea what he had. Knowing it was heroin, he just sold it, without cutting it. The junkies were overdosing because the stuff they were getting was so pure it was unheard of on the streets. You just don't get heroin this pure on the streets.
• D.A.R.E., a highly-touted anti-drug program for youth, conducted by local police departments in public schools, was eventually shown, in a tracking survey, to be associated with increasing drug use among teenagers. That is, D.A.R.E. "graduates" were more likely to do drugs than their dareless counterparts.
Now, set these aside for a moment. I'll be
right back to them.
Secondly, the emphasis here is on DEALERS losing assets... not someone who smoked a joint. Dont get all hysterical.
I am puzzled; see, that's what they said in this country, and that's not how it went. Which is a danger of asset forfeiture.
Does
anyone remember the
Monkey Business? I mentioned it earlier. That yacht would eventually be seized under asset forfeiture laws that were aimed at dealers. Less than a gram of marijuana was found in a waste tank. (The only reason the name of the yacht is even notable is that it played a vital role in one of our presidential elections.)
So, given that the American Drug War increased violence, made the drugs themselves more dangerous, and pretty much invented every problem the Drug Warriors complain about today, I would say that my problem is going after the dealers in the first place. Now, I'm not going to pretend that all dealers are nice. I've either been very lucky or have very good taste in dealers.
But if you've never heard our "Prison Culture" or "Prison Industry" barbs in the US, it's because human detention is currently a growth-centered industry. Prosecuting a drug war runs the risk of jailing a whole lot of people.
We have a huge prison population, disproportionate compared to the rest of the world. Most of those prisoners are drug
users.
The dealers are harder to shut down. But then again, they only need to be if a country chooses to fight a drug war.
Any government can make a lot more money off of drug dealers by taxing them instead of stealing their stuff.
Remember, in most countries where marijuana is illegal, alcohol is legal. In most countries where marijuana is illegal, cigarettes are legal.
So, why is it that the dealers need to be stopped like this? I mean, aside from the fact that there seems to be a better way to do it?
Harm reduction causes better "cure" rates than drug wars.
Harm reduction causes better health conditions than drug wars.
Decriminalization or legalization both cause less violence than a drug war.
Legalization makes money, drug wars waste money. Since I don't recall the actual last census numbers, I'll leave it at a more general number. Approximately 1% of the US population is in federal prison. 75% of these prisoners are in for drugs. Somewhere near 80% of
those are for nonviolent possession and delivery crimes.
In the meantime, the US is building prisons at an unprecedented pace, while at the same time, bedspace numbers show a decreasing proportion of violent criminals as we fill the beds with drug users.
I'm not going to tell the Australians to not pursue a drug war or not to engage in asset forfeiture. I truly have no reason to believe that Australians will botch it as badly as Americans.
Ours are just as dishonest as yours (conjecture)... however, I don't see the relevance... what, you think they're going to end up with the confiscated BMW's? Do we really care WHERE the revenue ends up... as long as the scum don't have it?
So judgmental. Some of the nicest and most trustworthy people I've known have sold me drugs.
And actually, the relevance is quite simple.
• Australia is engaging in asset forfeiture.
• The United States has used this policy
• In the United States, the policy failed, badly
• I happened to mention this, and the reasons why
• As you can see, the response I received speaks of what the program is supposed to do
• This is part of the issue
• We know what Asset Forfeiture is supposed to do, but I've pointed out what it actually does
• The response,
if they've been stripped of their assets that means they've been caught is the relevance
• Theoretically, that is correct
• Historically, that statement has no merit
• The statement can come true, but that is if the politicians are honest and the system is not abused as it traditionally has; you'd be hard-pressed to show me a nation that has ever kept its asset forfeiture to its expressed reasons, except of course for tyrannies where they're just going to take everything anyway.
I can presume the Australian politicians to be dishonest simply because they're politicians, but that doesn't necessarily mean they
are dishonest.
But if the response to the practical problems demonstrated in history is the potential of the theory, then sure. But the only way that potential comes true is if the policy is executed without corruption.
A general thought to consider: What is the legal age to consume alcohol in Australia? Did anyone ever drink underage? Who got you the booze? Did you give that person any money? That person is a drug dealer. The only reason that person would not be included in civil asset forfeiture is a matter of semantics. The fact remains that the person would have delivered a controlled substance in exchange for money.
Don't know how many legalization opportunities come up in Australia. But when anyone in the US tries to loosen marijuana laws especially, and drug laws in general, one of the biggest contributors to the campaign against is the alcohol lobby. Strange, that: will the boozers be included in Australia's asset-forfeiture law? They're not on our side of the ocean.
thanx,
Tiassa