Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
On tonight's Declaring Independence:
Dr. Michael Gilbert, a former member of law enforcement and now a professor of criminal justice at the University of Texas -- and a leading member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) -- will be on to talk about the harms caused by drug prohibition.
And Tim Skubick, the dean of Michigan's capitol reporters, will be on to talk about the state of the state, the upcoming midterm elections and the Michigan governor's race.
As always, you can listen to the show live from 6 to 7 pm EST by clicking here.
Comments
Would you ask him a question or two for me?
In his law enforcement career, how many people does he estimate he participated in the arrest or prosecution of for drug crimes?
(And if his answer is "Well, it was the law at the time," that doesn't wash. If he's now campaigning that these laws are bad and destructive, he's basically saying they were ALWAYS wrong, in which case he can't defend himself as just following the law.)
What has he done to make up for the lives he helped destroy? Personal apologies, perhaps?
Did he originally think he was doing a good thing, early in his career, supporting the drug laws? Why did he change?
What does he think of the fact that the philosophical position he now holds, was considered obvious to a LOT of people from the beginning? And why did it take him so long to wise up?
Further, does he think the people who have always understood the damage that drug laws do should now just accept him, no harm, no foul, as a spokesman against the laws he once actively supported?
If he's campaigning for legalization, is he also campaigning for complete retroactive forgiveness for all the people arrested and prosecuted and imprisoned for drug use? Is he campaigning for repayment of the years lost from their lives? If not, why not?
Is he interested in FIXING the harm that's been done, or just in fixing the law, and then moving on?
More generally, is it ever okay to just accept that some people having their lives destroyed for no good reason is a necessary side effect of large-scale government?
(And just for the record, I've never been a drug user. I think people who use drugs are stupid. But I'm also deeply suspicious of people who crow "I used to be a sinner! But now I've seen the light!)
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 4, 2010 10:42 AM
And actually, I'd be interested in knowing what all the LEAP people think of those questions.
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 4, 2010 10:43 AM
Yeah, and ask if the higher-level gun-carrying types are really just mostly-innocent freedom fighting heroes instead of what they appear to be - bad guys trying for fast money in an illegal way.
Posted by: rork | February 4, 2010 11:16 AM
Apropos of nothing, but my google fu is weak..
Someone on here once explained how to get firefox to let you watch Dailyshows outside the USA... can anyone remember how that was done?
Posted by: Donalbain | February 4, 2010 11:18 AM
I am a long-time advocate for legalizing drugs. But a question always haunted me--what happens to the dealers when you take away their business? Does Bodie (from The Wire) say: "Damn--time to go back to school!" or does he turn to a type of crime that may mean an increase violence on citizens--muggings, home invasions, car-jackings, etc?
I don't know. I know the view that "if it is no longer a crime, crime will go down" is at least somewhat naive. I just wonder if anyone has any idea what other crimes might increase and by how much if I can get my fix from the pharmacist for $2 rather than from Bodie for $50.
Bodie still has to eat. True dat.
Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2010 1:01 PM
Ed stated:
Nice catch Ed. For non-Michiganders, Mr. Skubick doesn't merely do "he said / she said" reporting, he actually does the hard work of properly framing the story and reporting the validity of claims and positions. For those of us living in Northern Michigan far from the capitol or cities and their media outlets, Mr. Skubick writes a weekly newspaper opinion column that provides rare and valuable insight regarding our state's politics. Our only other newspaper resources up here that do the same is George Weeks and Jack Lessenberry, two other very classy columnists whose opinions are worthy of consideration.
The fact we're three for three on getting such excellent analysis of state politics makes me even more annoyed at how rare it is to find honest, intelligent, insightful nationally syndicated columnists such as David Broder. The mean appears to be more similar to George Will or Cal Thomas.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 4, 2010 1:20 PM
heddie #5: But a question always haunted me--what happens to the dealers when you take away their business? Does Bodie (from The Wire) say: "Damn--time to go back to school!" or does he turn to a type of crime that may mean an increase violence on citizens--muggings, home invasions, car-jackings, etc?
Heddie, I'm far more concerned with the VAST number of muggings -- of people's entire lives -- perpetrated by law enforcement thugs in the pursuit of this viciously misguided body of law.
In answer to your question, there won't be a transition from shit to sunshine, and you can bet the nitwits will crow from the rooftops every time one of the incidents you envision happens.
The point isn't that entire generations of predatory businesses created by the War on Drugs will vanish overnight. The point is that society will gradually shape toward health. The point is that LESS of this damaging stuff will happen than is happening now.
Every advocate for reform recognizes that drugs have caused a certain amount of damage. What they recognize even more is that the law-enforcement approach to drugs has caused a much greater amount of damage. It's THIS they'd like to fix.
I hope we'll try to be less goddam stupid as a society. To envision and enact long-term goals that will make North America a better place to live for all those who come after. And maybe to fix some of what got wrecked by the way we've been doing things.
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 4, 2010 1:35 PM
Hank Fox,
That's not an answer to my question. I agree and posited that it won't be shit-to-sunshine. I agree that some people on either side of a debate will take political advantage when they can--nothing new there. My question was--has there been any serious analysis as to what will likely happen? Or is it just platitudes-- "Crime will go down!" on one side and "National Refer Madness!" on the other.
Again--I am 100% for drug legalization. I just decline the rose-colored glasses that some advocates like to sport. Over time my support for it has stayed the same--but the rationale has shifted from an early view that was entirely based on the presumption of a massive reduction in violent crime, to one that now is more along the lines of "If Johnny wants to smoke crack in his living room what do I care? And probably crime will go down too."
Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2010 2:11 PM
The answer I place most credence in is that this is not the only place in the world to try it.
Hell, we have an example right HERE that shows what will happen. Prohibition was a shot of steroids to organized crime. When it ended, organized crime didn't exactly vanish, but you also don't notice a lot of Al Capones barging around these days.
When Prohibition ended, not only did the consumption of alcohol go down, but what people did drink was safer. And the disdain for law enforcement, which is a very powerful side effect of all this, started to subside.
Actually, I'm convinced we still suffer some of the effects of Prohibition. Likely the same sort of thing will continue after drugs are legalized. But things can't go on the way they have been.
In Texas at one point, you could get the death penalty for posessing a single joint of marijuana. In California at one point, they could confiscate an elderly woman's house because her resident grandson was accused of (not convicted, just charged with) dealing pot.
And damn, how many hundreds of billions of dollars are we spending to warehouse people who have committed victimless crimes?
Shee-it, whatever else you might say about it, I'm INTERESTED IN MAKING THE EXPERIMENT.
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 4, 2010 2:28 PM
Hank Fox,
On that we can agree.
Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2010 2:33 PM
Don't you folks think that the doctors will not be on board?
They've got a monopoly to protect.
Or is it just "recreational" drugs that you want legalized?
If so what inquisitor will decide which drugs those are?
What about age?
Can my 14 year old buy what-you-will?
If not I see job opportunities for those bad guys, though it'll pay less.
Posted by: rork | February 4, 2010 3:46 PM
Oh, rork, don't be tedious. Every time these questions come up, someone always seems to leap in with absurd extreme extensions of the basic idea.
No, your 14-year-old won't be able to buy Vulcan Brain Exploders from the Mr. Happy-Time truck that comes through the neighborhood every day at 4. And kindergartners won't be shooting heroin in the cloak room during nap time.
Oh, and news flash: All those prescription drugs that doctors deal in, they're ALREADY LEGAL. And they'll stay just as they are, available by prescription.
And you did notice that this guy Ed's interviewing is a former law enforcement official? As in, you know, "member of the establishment"? What does that make you think about how this will go down?
If pot is legalized, it will be grown, packaged and sold by corporations. Probably the same people who make and sell cigarettes. If small growers are allowed to get into the market, they'll sell boutique joints with weird little labels like "Jamaican Me Crazy" and "Ganja from the Stranja," which will be wildly popular with people who fancy themselves the cool outsiders.
Corporate pot-sticks will cost more than cigarettes. Tax will be collected, a lot of it. A big show will be made of using the money for some glorious social purpose, but it will be pissed away just as the lottery money was, and in the end, none of us but the corporations and their pet politicians will be any better off.
The potency will go down to some legally-mandated "safe" level, just as the alcohol content of beer is controlled. It will still be illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence.
It might become legal to grow very small amounts at home, but it's more likely that growing it will remain illegal for individuals. You can be sure some bright corporate boy has already thought about this, and will propose it as part of the original bill. The argument will be made that that's the only way the public can be protected from hazardous chemicals such as herbicides and insecticides.
The sellers will be legally protected from any and all claims arising from the use of the new product. If any cases are brought, the corporations will use marijuana advocates own words to defend themselves: "Hey, pot smokers have been doing it for generations, and nobody's ever gotten hurt. Prove us wrong."
This is all IF the legalization movement gets what it wants. It's more likely that things will stay as they are, throwing hundreds of thousands of people in prison every year, confiscating their property, destroying their families, and all for no reason other than "We've always done it this way, and besides, ask us if we care."
In the end, if legalization passes, some people will still wreck their lives with drugs, just as they do with alcohol and tobacco and legalized gambling.
Except now, in this bold new era of freedom, we'll be able to make money off them as they go down smoking, just as we already make money off gamblers, alcoholics and tobacco addicts.
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 4, 2010 9:57 PM
Well. I listened to the interview podcast, and it was good, if somewhat softball-y.
Ed, I get it that your time was limited. And I get it that he's now on "our" side of the issue of these bad laws, and it's important to marshal those voices to get this change enacted.
But here's a guy who by his own admission once participated in the status quo operation of the drug war, and assumed that the law was right because it was the law.
I just have a hard time ignoring the damage that he and others like him must have done in those years when he was on that other side of the issue.
It's like a cartoon in which the former royal executioner becomes a member of the Citizens Against Beheading. Sure he's no longer wearing the black hood and carrying that big axe, but how does that help all those people he's already killed?
I have a hard time adopting the "let's move on" attitude and assuming all those people who really were imprisoned, the families that really were destroyed, are nothing more than collateral damage, unworthy of mention.
This guy will never pay any price for what he's done. He'll never apologize in any real way to the individuals whose lives he's helped wreck.
Yes, I'm glad he's doing what he's doing. But I sure don't see him as any kind of hero, or even someone deserving of any great respect.
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 10, 2010 11:11 AM