Sports writer Jason Whitlock is an interesting read whether you agree with him or not. His style is to weave social commentary and race into his sports writing, often with what appears to be interesting insight mixed with silly comments and oft times within the same sentence.
As such, his latest piece is on ex- Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez, now charged with murder.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/whitlock-aaron-hernandez-byproduct-of-society-not-aberration-tony-soprano-jay-z-gang-drug-culture-pervasive-in-society-070113
There is much I agree with in Whitlock's article as it pertains to Gangster Rap, Reality TV, Jay-Z and Kim Kardashian ( but not Hillary Clinton) as well as our overall American culture. I do hope, however, that Whitlock is not trying to discount Hernandez's own personal responsibility for his alleged sociopathic behavior.
I don't know what the drug aspect, if any, is in this article as it pertains to Hernandez and his alleged crime of murder.
"This is what a 40-year drug war, mass incarceration, a steady stream of Mafia movies, three decades of gangster rap and two decades of reality TV have wrought: athletes who covet the rebellious and marketable gangster persona".
But we should not be shocked that a professional athlete possibly crossed the line into sociopathic killer. The unhealthy side effects of drug prohibition and popular culture have made murderous drug dealers respected members of American society. Random, murderous violence and the people who commit those crimes have been normalized in America, thanks in large part to popular culture"
"Proving we learn nothing from our history, drug prohibition has legitimized the drug dealer the same way alcohol prohibition legitimized bootleggers (Joseph Kennedy). You let corrupt people make enough money and eventually they’ll use their wealth, power and influence to bait others into participating in and rationalizing their corrupt actions."
It never occurred to me during my 25-year career as a Customs and DEA agent that trying to enforce the laws against drug trafficking and "mass incarceration" of drug traffickers was glorifying the scumbags I was trying to put in jail and creating "unfortunates" like Aaron Hernandez. If Hollywood made cult heroes out of Al Capone, Frank Lucas (American Gangster), and others, that is their shame not the shame of the police.
On the contrary, Mr Whitlock, it is the drugs themselves and the traffickers, not the prohibition that is the problem. Would you argue that the prohibition against murder has made heroes of people like Charles Manson?
If Aaron Hernandez is, indeed guilty of murder, he will stand in court without the excuses in Whitlock's article. True, there is much rotten in our culture, but most people don't go out and commit cold-blooded murder because somebody "dissed" them.
And for all we know at this point, Hernandez never took an illegal drug in his life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
101"And for all we know at this point, Hernandez never took an illegal drug in his life."
You wouldn't want to take a bet on this would you, Gary?
No, I wouldn't but I was trying to make a point. How does the drug war turned hernandez into a killer?
I don't think the drug "war" turned Hernandez into a killer but the drugs themselves contributed significantly.
I'm picking up on your point, "On the contrary, Mr Whitlock, it is the drugs themselves and the traffickers, not the prohibition that is the problem."
No question there has a detrimental coarsening of our society over the years. Widespread use of drugs have been a major component of it.
About 100 years ago, heroin could be purchased over the counter in any pharmacy in the USA. We did not have the wealthy, well-armed drug-gangs we have today, because the stuff was dirt cheap. It was abused, but that was a small problem relative to the problems created by our current drug laws.
When a large portion of the population considers it OK to engage in something the law prohibits, the purveyors do become quasi-heroes. It wasn't enforcement by the ATF or its predecessors that made bootleggers into popular heroes, it was the breath of the demand for liquor. Judges, state legislators, members of the Chamber of Commerce, all wanted their booze. And the traffickers made enough money they could buy their way into positions of power and influence.
So, yes, I do think dismantling our failed drug laws is an appropriate way to go, and for all your bravery and skill and devotion, I do think the program of the DEA has been a failure.
Some of those you took out were ruthless characters who would have run afoul of some law and oppressed some people and you would, in some other law enforcement capacity, probably have locked up many of them anyway... but they wouldn't have had so much money to buy automatic weapons, and they wouldn't have had the same tinge of a "Robin Hood" image about them.
About 100 years ago, we didn't know the full effects of heroin. That is why it was made illegal.
Unlike marijuana or alcohol, you can't argue that heroin is used by a large portion of the population.
As for DEA being a failure, I would say this: When I began my career in 1970, I hoped that by the time I retired, we would have made the drug situation significantly less serious not only by enforecment, but education and rehabilitation. Obviously, that did not work out. Yet, if not for enforcement, this country would be swimming in drugs much more than it is. I don't care about putting users in jail. Putting dealers and traffickers in jail is proper and just, and there are no apologies coming from me for having done that.
The fact that drug dealers are thought by some to be robin hoods says more about our society than any enforcement efforts.
Gary, do you really think that, long term, if there were no drug laws, lots more people would be using them? I certainly wouldn't. I could hurt myself badly. I don't have any real desire for the stuff.
I think one important hazard of decriminalization is that there will be a short-term reaction "Try some, its legal!" So we have to be careful to get a message out, just because its legal doesn't mean it won't hurt you, it just means you won't go to prison.
There are various laws and regulations we should have in place, including drug testing in sensitive jobs, driving, flying planes, operation heavy equipment, working with children...
We might even have laws forbidding nonlicensed people to sell them, the better to protect purity and dosage, but if it can be purchased legally, there will not be a massive market for it "on the street."
Oh, and crimes committed under the influence might in some circumstances be cause for an enhancement, rather than a mitigating factor. But destroy the lucrative market for the cartels.
One of the biggest problems we have are with legal drugs (Rx). The Brits tripled their addict population by providing heroin to addicts. They still sold a part of it on the streets. For every solution, there is a problem that goes with it.
Do I have the solution? Clearly not because I didn't solve it over 25 years. Ultimately, it is education that can take root like education about cigarettes did. I have also made multiple trips to places like Zurich and Amsterdam and worked with their cops there. Theirs is hardly the best solution.
What licensed people would you want providing heroin and cocaine to your kids? FDA, DEA, HHS? What kind of allegiance could you give to your govt under those circumstances?
The incentives would have to be tested and tweaked. The idea would be to leave some limited room for those who are going to indulge to do so, keep the price low, and the consequences of being up in the face of people who don't want it around themselves or their children high. Right now dealers hide in residential neighborhoods for cover. The idea would be to make that the most likely way to draw a long prison sentence, while congregating in designated areas away from everyone else's peace and quiet enjoyment would be relatively safe. A bit messy no matter how its done, but its messy now. Take a look at Grisham's description of the rural Mississippi honky-tonks in the early pages of A Time To Kill. Basically, the preachers asked the candidate for sheriff to commit to closing down the honky tonks. He did. All those who used to hang out at the honky tonks came into town and hung out in the town square around the courthouse making noice, drinking beer, throwing cans all over the place, harassing any women who walked by. The preachers implored the sheriff to let the honky tonks reopen -- way out in the country where they had always been. He did. Peace and quiet returned.
Post a Comment