This week in the War on Drugs: Saving Lives Through Criminalization

[bilby]

Yeah, I remember my organic chemistry prof telling us that anybody who could get a C in the class could manufacture the so called designer drugs which would vary from the ones outlawed by only one small group…

The law is an ass, and often written in such a way as to generate unintended loopholes.

I recall that my dad (who is a physical chemist and an explosives expert) was called as an expert witness in the trial of some youths who had been caught during a riot with a crate of petrol bombs (aka Molotov cocktails).

The defence was arguing that despite the name including the word 'bomb', these devices were not in fact explosives, and therefore the defendants couldn't be charged under the Explosives Act.

My father confirmed their assertion; And pointed out that the defendants were, however, guilty of several breaches of the Petroleum Act (a law that was intended to ensure that fuel suppliers conducted their business in a safe manner).

It's rarely a good idea to try to be a smartarse in a court of law. Something that many lawyers don't seem to understand.

I believe that defense would have worked in the US, you don't get to convict someone of something they weren't charged with.

But you do get to charge someone of something when you have good evidence of their guilt.

It's not unheard of for an acquitted defendant to be arrested on new charges as they leave court, if the trial brought new crimes to light.

 

[Hermit]

Pray tell, exactly what is your solution to the drug problem?

Can you say “Portugal”?
Not that it’s a perfect model, but it beats the hell out of the epic shitshow that is the War on Drugs.

Portugal is a good model, but many seem to misunderstand it. Decriminalization is not legalization. The police still take the drugs. The offender faces a community council rather than a court, and that council decides what to do with the offender. If the quantity of drugs is over a certain amount, the offender could face prison. The goal should be to get people off the poison. And the Portuguese determined that community nudging is best.

The problem with your position is that there is nothing the state can impose that will remove the desire for drugs. Rehab will fail if the patient doesn't truly want to quit.

The number of drug users decreased after Portugal decriminalised the use of all drugs.

In 2019, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction published a report on the drug situation in Portugal. Here are Portugal's rankings among the 30 EU members.

Use among young adults (15-34 years)
Cannabis: 23rd
Cocaine: 25th
MDMA: 27th
Amphetamine use: Equal last

Drug-induced mortality rates national estimates among adults (15-64 years): 28th

Portugal still has drug problems, but in many (although not all) respects it is doing better than the majority of the other EU members.

 

[bilby]

The reason why people take drugs is that they aren't happy with life without them.

Punishment and marginalisation as a strategy to make people happier with their base existence seems like a pretty poor idea to me.

Particularly as most drugs don't have many bad social effects, once the stigma is removed.

Tobacco, alcohol and caffeine are all quite addictive, and have some fairly worrisome health effects - yet they don't lead to massive social problems for the main part. Or rather, they don't when they are legal - alcohol lead to massive social problems, in particular to widespread and lucrative organised crime, when it was briefly criminalised in the US.

Getting people off drugs is a moderately good idea, but most people don't really suffer from addictions they keep for life, as long as their substance of choice is easily available, so 'getting them off the poison' isn't really that important.

Very few people are really bothered by their addiction to caffeine. THC doesn't seem to be dramatically more harmful, yet people who cannot imagine functioning without their morning cup of joe are happy to throw up their hands in horror at the legalisation of pot.

The drugs aren't anywhere near as much of a problem as the stigma attached to them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, I remember my organic chemistry prof telling us that anybody who could get a C in the class could manufacture the so called designer drugs which would vary from the ones outlawed by only one small group…

The law is an ass, and often written in such a way as to generate unintended loopholes.

I recall that my dad (who is a physical chemist and an explosives expert) was called as an expert witness in the trial of some youths who had been caught during a riot with a crate of petrol bombs (aka Molotov cocktails).

The defence was arguing that despite the name including the word 'bomb', these devices were not in fact explosives, and therefore the defendants couldn't be charged under the Explosives Act.

My father confirmed their assertion; And pointed out that the defendants were, however, guilty of several breaches of the Petroleum Act (a law that was intended to ensure that fuel suppliers conducted their business in a safe manner).

It's rarely a good idea to try to be a smartarse in a court of law. Something that many lawyers don't seem to understand.

I believe that defense would have worked in the US, you don't get to convict someone of something they weren't charged with.

But you do get to charge someone of something when you have good evidence of their guilt.

It's not unheard of for an acquitted defendant to be arrested on new charges as they leave court, if the trial brought new crimes to light.

But this isn't a new crime. The crime was possessing a crate of molotovs and were charged with possession of bombs. They have no bombs, they're not guilty. I believe at this point double jeapordy attaches to the act of possessing molotovs. (However, state and federal are separate. Being exonerated in state court doesn't preclude different federal charges--which is why you occasionally see someone convicted of violating someone's civil rights. They were exonerated but the feds wanted to charge them anyway.)

 

[bilby]

Yeah, I remember my organic chemistry prof telling us that anybody who could get a C in the class could manufacture the so called designer drugs which would vary from the ones outlawed by only one small group…

The law is an ass, and often written in such a way as to generate unintended loopholes.

I recall that my dad (who is a physical chemist and an explosives expert) was called as an expert witness in the trial of some youths who had been caught during a riot with a crate of petrol bombs (aka Molotov cocktails).

The defence was arguing that despite the name including the word 'bomb', these devices were not in fact explosives, and therefore the defendants couldn't be charged under the Explosives Act.

My father confirmed their assertion; And pointed out that the defendants were, however, guilty of several breaches of the Petroleum Act (a law that was intended to ensure that fuel suppliers conducted their business in a safe manner).

It's rarely a good idea to try to be a smartarse in a court of law. Something that many lawyers don't seem to understand.

I believe that defense would have worked in the US, you don't get to convict someone of something they weren't charged with.

But you do get to charge someone of something when you have good evidence of their guilt.

It's not unheard of for an acquitted defendant to be arrested on new charges as they leave court, if the trial brought new crimes to light.

But this isn't a new crime. The crime was possessing a crate of molotovs and were charged with possession of bombs. They have no bombs, they're not guilty. I believe at this point double jeapordy attaches to the act of possessing molotovs. (However, state and federal are separate. Being exonerated in state court doesn't preclude different federal charges--which is why you occasionally see someone convicted of violating someone's civil rights. They were exonerated but the feds wanted to charge them anyway.)

The United Kingdom doesn't have federal and state jurisdictions, nor does it have strict prohibition against double jeopardy. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the crown can bring new charges against an acquitted defendant where new evidence has come to light, or when a retrial is adjudged by the Home Secretary to be in the public interest.

I am underconvinced that double jeopardy would apply in English law anyway, if the second charge is under a completely different Act.