News (Media Awareness Project) - US MI: 2 LTE: Just Say No To Drug Law Proposal |
Title: | US MI: 2 LTE: Just Say No To Drug Law Proposal |
Published On: | 2002-08-30 |
Source: | Detroit Free Press (MI) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-22 07:36:59 |
JUST SAY NO TO DRUG LAW PROPOSAL
I am happy to see that Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson opposes the
latest drug legalization effort that voters in Michigan are likely to face
in November ("Overhaul for drug laws is way off target," Aug. 28). If
Michigan citizens take a close look at what this constitutional amendment
advocates, we will have numerous reasons to oppose it -- and not just that
it changes our state Constitution, which was Dickerson's chief complaint.
This constitutional amendment is not aimed solely at users of marijuana or
the use of marijuana for medical purposes, as many believe. The aims of this
amendment are all Schedule 1 controlled substances. In other words, those
who possess any drug that has been determined by the FDA to have no medical
benefit -- including heroin, crack cocaine, ecstasy and the date rape drug
GHB -- would have the choice to receive treatment or face criminal
prosecution.
The amendment is not directed at just those who possess small quantities of
Schedule 1 drugs. Under this proposal, a prosecutor would have to prove that
someone charged with drug trafficking earned a net profit of at least
$500,000 from his drug dealing in order to be convicted. Drug dealers do not
file tax returns. Consequently, no one would be prosecuted for dope dealing
in Michigan if this proposal were to pass.
The war on drugs is not being lost. There has been a 75-percent decrease in
cocaine use in this country in the past 15 years. That's 4 million fewer
people who use cocaine on a regular basis today than years ago. Also, there
are 9 million fewer users of all illegal drugs in America today than in
1979; that's a 50-percent reduction in drug abuse.
The passing of such a proposal would give young people the impression that
there is less risk involved with the use of all illegal drugs, which would
reverse the positive trend we have seen since 1979. If this constitutional
amendment passes, it will mean only one thing: cheaper, more powerful drugs
on our streets. Is this what we really want for our kids?
Michael A. Braun, Special Agent in Charge
U.S. Department of Justice
Detroit
DRUG WAR BEING WON
Kudos to Brian Dickerson for coming out against the latest West Coast effort
to legalize drugs in Michigan. He fell prey, however, to the legalizers'
mantra that we're losing the war on drugs. The facts prove otherwise.
Consider the fact that only 5 percent of Americans currently use drugs.
Also, the Free Press published results of a study showing that, for the
first time since 1996, most teens reported that their schools are drug free
(63 percent), and that student drug use has steadily declined over the past
five years.
Dickerson also opined that we need to push nonviolent drug offenders into
treatment instead of prison. We already are; of 47,000 Michigan inmates,
only 15 are imprisoned solely on drug possession charges.
James J. Halushka, Deputy Prosecutor-Warrants and Investigations
Oakland County
Pontiac
I am happy to see that Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson opposes the
latest drug legalization effort that voters in Michigan are likely to face
in November ("Overhaul for drug laws is way off target," Aug. 28). If
Michigan citizens take a close look at what this constitutional amendment
advocates, we will have numerous reasons to oppose it -- and not just that
it changes our state Constitution, which was Dickerson's chief complaint.
This constitutional amendment is not aimed solely at users of marijuana or
the use of marijuana for medical purposes, as many believe. The aims of this
amendment are all Schedule 1 controlled substances. In other words, those
who possess any drug that has been determined by the FDA to have no medical
benefit -- including heroin, crack cocaine, ecstasy and the date rape drug
GHB -- would have the choice to receive treatment or face criminal
prosecution.
The amendment is not directed at just those who possess small quantities of
Schedule 1 drugs. Under this proposal, a prosecutor would have to prove that
someone charged with drug trafficking earned a net profit of at least
$500,000 from his drug dealing in order to be convicted. Drug dealers do not
file tax returns. Consequently, no one would be prosecuted for dope dealing
in Michigan if this proposal were to pass.
The war on drugs is not being lost. There has been a 75-percent decrease in
cocaine use in this country in the past 15 years. That's 4 million fewer
people who use cocaine on a regular basis today than years ago. Also, there
are 9 million fewer users of all illegal drugs in America today than in
1979; that's a 50-percent reduction in drug abuse.
The passing of such a proposal would give young people the impression that
there is less risk involved with the use of all illegal drugs, which would
reverse the positive trend we have seen since 1979. If this constitutional
amendment passes, it will mean only one thing: cheaper, more powerful drugs
on our streets. Is this what we really want for our kids?
Michael A. Braun, Special Agent in Charge
U.S. Department of Justice
Detroit
DRUG WAR BEING WON
Kudos to Brian Dickerson for coming out against the latest West Coast effort
to legalize drugs in Michigan. He fell prey, however, to the legalizers'
mantra that we're losing the war on drugs. The facts prove otherwise.
Consider the fact that only 5 percent of Americans currently use drugs.
Also, the Free Press published results of a study showing that, for the
first time since 1996, most teens reported that their schools are drug free
(63 percent), and that student drug use has steadily declined over the past
five years.
Dickerson also opined that we need to push nonviolent drug offenders into
treatment instead of prison. We already are; of 47,000 Michigan inmates,
only 15 are imprisoned solely on drug possession charges.
James J. Halushka, Deputy Prosecutor-Warrants and Investigations
Oakland County
Pontiac
Member Comments |
No member comments available...