ACLU Wants All Drugs Legal
Posted on August 11, 2005
“The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes criminal prohibition of drugs. Not only is prohibition a proven failure as a drug control strategy, but it subjects otherwise lawabiding citizens to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for what they do in private. In trying to enforce the drug laws, the government violates the fundamental rights of privacy and personal autonomy that are guaranteed by our Constitution. The ACLU believes that unless they do harm to others, people should not be punished even if they do harm to themselves. There are better ways to control drug use, ways that will ultimately lead to a healthier, freer and less crimeridden society”.ACLU Website
Wow! What an incredibly elitist, irresponsible position. If you read further, you find that they would want to set it up under a system of regulated manufacture and distribution. If you thought the lawsuits against the tobacco industries were frivolous, can you imagine the lawsuits that would be filed on the manufacturers of heroine, or crack?
And as you read further on their site you will find their theory to be based on a lot of “mights”. Young people “might” not be as attracted if it were not a taboo. It “might” result in less potent drugs availability.
Right now it is illegal to drink and drive, and for good reason. Alcohol affects your judgment and when you get behind the wheel of a car with an altered perception you endanger more than just yourself. The same logic goes with drugs….it affects other people.
An estimated 100,000 babies are born each year addicted to cocaine. So don’t tell me that drugs only affect the user! Tell that to the little babies born addicted to crack! Tell that to a woman who is raped by her boyfriend while he is high on PCP! And in the case of legalization maybe the ACLU should tell that to the taxpayers who’s insurance rates will skyrocket through the roof, and have more taxes to pay for drug rehab programs!
What age limit would the ACLU advise for the purchase of heroin?
Will the legalization of drugs reduce the crime rate? Don’t ignore the fact that many violent crimes are committed through the influence of drugs. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (7/6/94) reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that “homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacological effects of cocaine.” And that is just one example.
Of course the fact of drugs being illegal does cause part of the crime. However, if drugs were legal, not only would the crime rate increase because of the increased number of people who were taking drugs, but there would still be a “black market” and a motive for profit, which brings me the next point..The Black Market.
There are two theories that legalizers like to use that claim the legalization of drugs would eliminate the black market. One states that if drugs were legal they would be sold at regulated government stores. Other legalizers state that drugs would be given out to the poor addicts who could not afford them.
Some believe prices would be low enough to wipe out the black market. Buyers would, however, be heavily taxed to pay for drug education programs and rehabilitation centers. And these taxes would make it possible for criminals to undercut the official price and make their profit. The ACLU wants regulation, and the fact is that a black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available to all ages in unlimited quantity.
And again, what of the democratic process? The vast majority of Americans are against legalization of all drugs.
For you potheads out there…I will accept a logical debate on the legalization of marijuana, I might even vote for it if it were allowed to be a States rights issue like it should be, but when it comes to ALL drugs being available and distributed by the government…it is simply detrimental to our interdependent society. The decriminalization of drugs would make dangerous, psychoactive, and addictive substances affordable, available, convenient, and marketable. It would increase the use of drugs. It would remove the social taboo attached to it, and it would send a message of tolerance, especially to the youth.
The fact is that we are not losing the war on drugs. “The Legalization Lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years, while cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent. Ninety-five percent of Americans do not use drugs. This is success by any standards.”See More at DEA Site
Can you imagine how creative the advertisers would get in their competitive efforts to entice you to their particular brand of drug? And while you are thinking about this world the ACLU dreams of, keep in mind the ACLU’s attitude towards drug testing in the workplace See Here. Then ask yourself what condition do you want your specialtist when you wheel your loved one in for heart or brain surgery? Or the air traffic controller who is monitoring your plane as it approaches landing? The soldier who is truly protecting your freedom and liberty? Something this radical would affect all of society! Aren’t legal drugs killing enough people already?
This is a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us please go to our Protest The ACLU Portal and simply register your blog. You will be added to our mailing list and we will send you the rest of the info. Almost 100 blogs are already participating. See My Sidebar to see who.
Help Us Raise Money To Advertise And Organize A Nationwide March On All The ACLU Offices In All 50 States. Buy A Bumper Sticker From Our Store. Your Support Is Greatly Appreciated.
And to all you hardcore libertarians who view drug legalization as liberty I will just say this. Drug addiction is a form of slavery. How can you equate it to liberty? I suggest you read the very well written post, The Libertarian Case for Drug Control
Thanks Basil
What the heck? Is today legalized drug day? Rightwing Nuthouse has more.
The Unabrewer disagrees.
Poliblogger has an interesting take on things too.
Left Noose discusses it.
My friend Rusty strongly disagrees
But Ace agrees
» Filed Under Illegal Activities
Trackback URL
Comments
32 Responses to “ACLU Wants All Drugs Legal”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Thanks for the tips yesterday, Jay. I tried out changing the timestamp and it works like a charm. That’s going to REALLY FREE ME UP in terms of time. You’re a peach and great post for the blogburst!
WHAT? The ACLU supports legalizing drugs? It sounds like a fantasy I once had about government-subsidized crack houses!
–NUFF SAID!
Why don’t we just let kids shoot up? That is what they are leaning towards. There have to be some basic laws or we would have more chaos than we have today.
Anarchy Chaos Lovers Union
“If you thought the lawsuits against the tobacco industries were frivolous, can you imagine the lawsuits that would be filed on the manufacturers of heroine, or crack?”
Why would these be frivolous, if alternative is to put the manufacturers of crack or heroin in jail?
If there was ever a blog posting to be fisked, this is it.
I especially love relying on stats from a government agency that constantly says it needs more resources to fight the drug war, but at the same time we’re winning it.
There’s little difference between the writers of this, the Left, and collectivists in general: they want to call the shots on how to live your life because an individual is too stupid to do it themself.
I despise the ACLU, but this alone shows you’re not that much different.
Got my post up on how they’re taking Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for government services (like voting) to the UN.
ACLU..it would certainly be ok for your day care provider to freebase or mainline a little smack on their lunch break. Maybe your 4-year old could hold the ether while they smoke a couple quick puffs.
Did theyactually call drug users, “otherwise law-abiding citizens.” Soemone should tell the ACLU the high percentage of criminals in jail dut to crime other than possession or possession with intent to sell, which are directly related to drug use. What morons! Maybe if they let the law enforcement close the border, kick out illegals and profile possible criminals, they would not be having that conversation.
Arguing that making drugs legal will lead to a nation of drooling idiots with the munchies is alarmist at best and just plain stupid at worst.
If the legalization of vice is so darn tempting that even the level-headed among us won’t be able to resist then I suppose I’m wrong in thinking that we have a nation where a vast majority are decent people when we actually have a nation of alcoholic gamblers smoking cigarettes while watching porn 24/7.
The legalization of drugs does not miraculously legalize negligent, reckless, or even criminal behavior that comes as a result of such drug use. Drinking alcohol is legal. A drunk surgeon who screws up my appendectomy is not only facing a civil suit, but possibly criminal charges as well. There is no substantive difference.
In addition, I resent the insinuation that everyone who argues for legalization is a pothead. I, for one, do not use drugs and have no interest in using drugs. I support the initiative simply on the basis of freedom. As much as I believe in the freedom to make smart choices, I believe it has very little value without the freedom to make bad ones. Clearly we have the ability to regulate what we want, where we want, and how we want. The question is: Is it worth it? We know we can do it, the question is should we do it?
I agree with Mark. The reason why the (questionable) DEA stat that shows that 95% of citizens don’t use drugs isn’t because drugs are illegal . . . unless of course you don’t believe in free will. The reason why the numbers are so low is because most people don’t have any interest in getting high.
Even partially decriminalizing will help treat people with problems and (if done properly) remove the violent profit motive component.
Anyway, it’s not crackheads, meth heads, and heroin addicts who are the ones with guns and knives killing people (they sold them for drugs) — it’s drug dealers/gangs fighting with other drug dealers/gangs.
I apologize if my poor writing skills seemed to insinuate that I think all who support drug legalization are users. I did not intend to come across that way. As a matter of fact I even stated taht I would probably support marijuana legalization on a State by State basis.
However, I disagree with the notion of drug legalization being equated with liberty, when to me its addiction is a form of slavery. To me the libertarian idea of legalization is flawed in trying to state it is a private matter, when in reality it affects many others. I know alcholol and cigerettes do too, however, as much money as we spend on the drug war may not be stopping things, but the answer is not legalizing it. I especially disagree with the ACLU’s postion that it be government regulated and distributed.
I respect the other side of this argument very much, and think it has good intentions at its basis, however, personally I don’t buy it.
I’m not in favor of full legalization, but decriminalization. Although, the government would be a better seller than some pusher on your street.
Jay –
Thank you for your response.
You offer many arguments in favor of your position ranging from it enslaves the user to the unacceptable behavior commonly demonstrated by addicts often affecting others.
The enslavement point is clever in that it shoots right at the heart of civil libertarian ideals but it ultimately fails because what you’re actually arguing against is addiction, not the addictive products. Let’s put it another way: If a great number of people, of their own free will, eat nothing but Big Mac’s and, becoming addicted to the burgers, suffer health problems as a result and those problems affect their families, the GDP, and may even cost government health services, should we legislate against McDonald’s if the diners knew the potential dangers? The fact that some may argue they couldn’t help themselves is irrelevant to the point that they knew the danger of addiction existed at the time they took that first bite. I’ll put it another way: Should gun companies be responsible if their product is used in a crime? Does the potential harm of any handgun make these lawsuits rational?
Think of the old argument, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” I’m going out on a limb and assume you agree with that statement.
So here’s my new slogan, “Drugs don’t cause crime. Criminals cause crime.”
I’ll guess you’ll argue that there’s a clear correlation between drug use and crime. Well, let’s define crime as that committed by the drug user to secure financing for more drugs. Okay, well, there’s also a clear correlation between crime and being poor. There’s a clear correlation between crime and youth. There’s a clear correlation between crime and single-parent households. Clearly, all those items are not illegal and yet they represent potential harm on society and individuals other than the actors. Surely we could legislate away poorness. We could force the youth into military run schools. We could take children away from single-parents because of national security or in the interest of the “public good”. But we don’t do these things not because we can’t do them, but because we shouldn’t.
I agree with you that drug legalization ought to be a State issue except for the fact that much of the drug supply comes from overseas which puts it into the Federal arena. When California tried to deviate from the Feds for the benefit of the terminally ill strictly within California using marijuana solely grown in California, the Federal hammer came down. Did you know the ACLU fought against this abuse of Federal authority?
I know alcholol and cigerettes do too, however, as much money as we spend on the drug war may not be stopping things, but the answer is not legalizing it.
The answer to what: crime, drug use, or addiction?
I also disagree with the ACLU’s position on government distribution of drugs though, like prescription drugs or food, I think regulation is important and appropriate.
In the end this is most certainly a liberty issue because it involves the use of government muscle to create an arbitrary class of banned items. As I’ve demonstrated above, the idea of legislating against potential harm is ludicrous because it has no barrier of entry to any and every aspect of American life. Under this reasoning, all the majority must claim is topic A is a danger to national security or a danger to the “public good” and we therefore must legislate against it. That’s all well and good until you are no longer standing with the majority.
Well, I just wrote a really long post in response you Jay and when I hit ‘Say It’ it just disappeared.
So, I’ll summarize. You make a very passionate argument against addiction and a very weak one against drug legalization. No one likes addiction. Drug legalization is an issue of liberty; it is the use of government muscle telling the populace what it can or can’t do.
Your argument relies heavily on the idea of legislating away potential harm. In summary, your argument is drug abusers commit crimes to secure the financing for more drugs. Maybe so. But does legalizing drugs make those crimes less criminal? If you’re arguing a cause and effect scenario, where drug abuse has a clear correlation to crime, then I agree. However consider this; there is a clear correlation between crime and being poor. There is a clear correlation between crime and youth. There is a clear correlation between crime and living in a single-parent household. Here are three indications that statistically show the likelihood of potential harm. Why don’t we remove, through the use of government power, these conditions that help create potential harm similar to removing drugs?
The concept of legislating based on potential harm is highly suspect and should be avoided. Why? Because if we use potential harm as a standard then EVERYTHING is open to control. What is the potential harm of a person eating nothing but Big Macs? There is a potential harm of a person driving their car, by accident or on purpose, through a crowd of people? Should be ban cars or should we punish the bad actor?
Outlawing drugs has proven to be an unreasonable policy to fix what is, ultimately, the biggest concern for people: addiction.
We would argue in circles on this one. It all comes back around to prohibition might not work, but I’ll just say that legalization or decriminalization will not help the problem either.
It really is a devisive issue, and it really comes down to libertarian view vs. Conservative view. Both have merit, but I don’t think either can solve the problem.
Jay:
I’m disappointed. Apparently you wish to close the conversation without providing a single logical reason why criminalization should continue. You say that legalization will not solve the problem but I do not see myself making such a claim. In fact, if we agree that the problem is not drugs themselves but rather addiction, then there’s no solution since there is no government program or law that can cure the human psyche. Your thinking is flawed, or at least you haven’t given me a logical reason with support to think otherwise. You don’t stamp out demand but cutting supply — even Democrats admit to that.
Drug addiction can cause problems for more than the actor. I don’t disagree with you on that. But you have failed to address the substantive difference between a father blowing his paycheck on drugs (which you claim hurts society) and a father blowing his paycheck at the bar, at the racetrack, or simply over-extending himself. You have failed to address the substantive difference between the potential harm caused by a poor youth growing up in a single-parent household and the potential harm caused by a drug addict.
I have claimed that what you favor is a standard of harm so broad that it could apply to anything and everything. How do you reconcile the conclusion that it is perfectly acceptable to have inconsistent positions regarding the rule of law? Surely you don’t think inconsistency in law, or in the enforcement of law, is something desirous?
I frequent many blogs and cross many political lines: you can find me here, you can find me at libertarian blogs, and you can find me arguing at Democrat blogs. What I find, the common element in all these places of varying opinion, is that no one wants to discuss fundamentals. Everyone prays at the temple of ‘well, that’s just how I feel.’ I have refuted every claim you’ve made and your response: you repeat yourself and finally conclude with a statement tantamount to, ‘We’ll just have to agree to disagree.’
Belief is not a substitute for knowledge nor is it convincing as a foundation for governance. We are governed by the rule of law and abusing it to punish all when only a few are guilty (or in your case potentially guilty) is ludicrous.
Like I have nothing better to do than debate you. Listen, I am going to spend some time with my family right now…I’ll get back to debating you when I have the opportunity.
Was that an insincere brush off? Wow, how unexpected. I thought a man of such strong conviction would revel at the chance to win a convert. Oh well.
The brushoff was not insincere. I’m back and ready to discuss whatever you would like. As a matter of fact at 8 p.m. this Friday night our chat room will be open. Come on in.
Otherwise, we can still discuss it here in the comments. Sigh…goodness. I guy can’t even take a break without being accused of a brushoff.
Jay:
“I’m disappointed. Apparently you wish to close the conversation without providing a single logical reason why criminalization should continue. You say that legalization will not solve the problem but I do not see myself making such a claim.”
everyone would agree (I beieve) that we have laws regulating murder (even though, man has a propensity to do that). Are you proposing that we repeal all laws regarding murder so that the incidence of murder will drop accordingly. After all…if we say its ok…people aren’t as apt to do it, right?
Loboinok –
Absolutely not. Murder, by definition, is the act of one against another. There is no issue of potential harm because murder is clearly ACTUAL AND IMMEDIATE HARM.
Jay –
Sorry for the accusation. I’ll take your word for it that it wasn’t a brush off.
Since you’re willing to continue then I welcome you to respond to my previous post. I’ll be around.
LOL…
The DEA…”95% of Americans do not use drugs.”
More “facts” from the DEA:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Well first off, comparing Big Macs to something like heroine is ridiculous. Lets say that we legalized heroine, from what I’ve heard, once and you are hooked. Now, lets compare the damage done of a Big Mac vs. a heroine habit.
I agree with libertarian ideas against seat belt laws, and helmet laws…these are intrusions. They only affect the individual. Drug use affects others.
The government can tell you what you can and can not do, and should if it affects or endangers others. With all of the knowledge we know about the affects of drugs on others around the user, to legalize them would be to endorse the endangering of others.
You said: We are governed by the rule of law and abusing it to punish all when only a few are guilty (or in your case potentially guilty) is ludicrous.
How is the criminalization of drugs punishing all?
you use the definition that gun’s don’t kill people, people kill people. Well drugs do kill people.
Many drugs do cause ACTUAL AND IMMEDIATE HARM.
I have watched drugs ruin people. Friends, and family. I watched my brother go down the hole. I have seen first hand the harm that drugs cause, and I can not advocate making them more easily available.
I have seen how its criminalization has worked first hand, as it did with my brother. He turned his life around. Being caught awakened him, and he got help. He now runs a half-way house for teens addicted to drugs.
I think the burden of proof lies to your arguement. How can you show me that making drugs legal would help the solve the problem they cause.
If you are calling this liberty, then how would you advocate the taxpayers paying for their rehab? If it is about freedom to do what they want to their own bodies, then they should pay the consequences themselves.
If the government regulated it, do you really think the black market would disappear? Not a chance.
Having the government become the dealer would only cause them to compete with the thugs.
As for the drunk spending his cash at the bar…it is no different. But the rationale that if one thing we have deemed legal, even though it is harmful, should be reason to legalize other things that are harmful to our society, I will not accept.
Jay –
You have made two claims as to why drugs should be illegal: the potential threat to society and the immediate harm to the individual.
Comparing Big Macs to heroin was meant to be ridiculous to illustrate the point that anything, even something as benign as a Big Mac, can be shown as a potential harm on society and to the individual. It is true that heroin is more dangerous than a Big Mac and I did not argue otherwise. But the McDonald’s analogy was not intended to measure severity of immediate harm to the individual, but simply to demonstrate that potential harm to the public good as a standard in which to create laws is arbitrary and silly as it can apply to everything in life.
With regard to actual harm to the individual: My bottle of Excedrin says I shouldn’t take more than 2 doses in 24 hours unless directed by a physician. Am I not on notice that I shouldn’t take that third pill? Should government take a proactive position and only allow these pills to be sold two at a time so that I have to go to a government approved pharmacy to get more? Of course not. But you are clearly advocating a standard that says people, even when given ample warning of the dangers, should still be protected from their own poor behavior.
Question: Which came first, the warning label or government regulation?
Answer: The answer is irrelevant because all that matters is that the product is legally on the market which gives all who use it the right to sue for its undisclosed side-effects or incorrect dosage suggestions. Such side-effects would, theoretically, include addiction.
Heroin, marijuana, cocaine, LSD, meth, etc. are all illegal which means their users have no legal recourse against their dealers. Dealers are free to cut crack with any number of lethal chemicals only accentuating the health risks to its users. By making these drugs illegal we have condemned all users, even those who use them recreationally, to added risk without legal recourse. For those with addiction problems, those who you say can’t help themselves, do they not deserve full disclosure as to what is in their drugs?
A black market, in some degree, will still exist even if drugs are made legal because any legalization would require a great deal of government regulation. But the appeal of a regulated product with purity and safety standards over something your friend brewed up in his bathtub cannot be discounted as irrelevant. Abusers of the system will always exist, much like the black market for pain killers. As for the government becoming a drug dealer, I certainly don’t advocate that. The government is no more a drug dealer because it regulates OxyCotin than it would be for regulating cocaine. I am only advocating regulation, not manfacturing or distribution.
In the case of your brother, what were the circumstances of his arrest? Possession? Did he commit another crime to secure more drugs? Driving under the influence? What? You’re using a rheotorical piece of evidence as support for your argument but not giving me enough details to frame a rebuttal.
How can you show me that making drugs legal would help the [sic] solve the problem they cause.
To attempt such a demonstration would be pointless because there is no solution to addiction nor to the impulse to commit crimes. But we currently have perfectly good criminal laws that can be used to punish those who commit crimes stemming from drug use. The fact that a person is addicted should have no bearing on their punishment because, at one time, they chose to do drugs. The fact that they became addicted is no one’s fault but their own. Do we excuse criminal behavior for those who claim they didn’t know the ramifications of their drug of choice? Do we excuse the drunk driver who kills a whole family returning from Disneyland? No, we lock them up and get them treatment but they must still serve time for the crime.
If you are calling this liberty, then how would you advocate the taxpayers paying for their rehab? If it is about freedom to do what they want to their own bodies, then they should pay the consequences themselves.
I wouldn’t. Government involvement in healthcare is one of the worst ideas championed these days whether we’re talking about Hillary-care or precription coverage for seniors.
If we can agree that not everyone who uses drugs is an addict, then how do we justify making occasional users criminals? They do not commit crimes nor do they damage society under your definition of harm unless you want to classify likely underachievement as a potential harm on society. This is what I meant by punishing the group because of a few bad apples.
The practice of law-making in the name of the ‘public good’ has gained acceptance to my chagrin. Such a broad standard underlies the recent attempts to legislate obesity, universal healthcare, sport’s stadiums, public transportation systems, etc. All these issues use the same foundation of reasoning that you are using in arguing against drug legalization: we do it for the public good. If it is statistically likely a male child growing up minority, poor, and in a single-parent household will spend time in jail for any number of crimes, potentially violent crimes, is it not in the public good to prevent his birth? Of course not though I can certainly advocate doing so staying 100% faithful to your reasoning.
Once you create a reasoning or standard for a particular law, be prepared to see it used everywhere. The abuse of the Commerce Clause is a prime example of a legal reasoning or standard abused to the point that it can apply to anything and everything — even marijuana use for terminally ill patients using California grown pot strictly for California patients never crossing the state lines.
Do you know the Supreme Court ruled against Raich (the California marijuana case) on what was a ‘public good’ reasoning?
This line of thinking has become so pervasive that even supposed strict constructionists like Scalia have fallen subject to it. Why? Because it is such a subjective foundation of legal reasoning that it can be used to support or reject any issue. Such a flexible standard has no value because it’s authority stems from the whims of the day.
Indirect consequences to society. A chain of events.
A taboo exists in these drug use that cause them to keep their use secret. This taboo would not be lifted by decriminalization. It is embedded in the psyche of society, and the criminalization is a reflection of the people.
My brother’s drug use and dealing was kept secret from the family. And I would argue that underachievment from the excess of these drugs were a contributing factor in the chain of events that led to him changing. Also fear of punishment by jail time was a dettering factor.
He was drugged up to the point that he wasn’t making his truck payments, and left the drugs and a wad of money in the truck. They repossessed it. When he went to retrieve it, their was a sting operation.
During the Court trials he continued to use and deal. He was mugged by someone who thought they had a raw deal. When the police arrived to show my brother some profiles, they saw a roach in the ashtray which gave them reasonable cause to search the house, where they found much more.
From the fear of the punishment over his head he turned his life around, gave his life to God, and now runs a halfway house.
I would have to say the drugs impaired his judgement that lead to getting caught. And the fear of the punishment turned him around. He would say the same thing.
I just submitted a response to you Jay but, 15 minutes later, and it still hasn’t shown up. This has happened a few times now.
Just for future reference so I don’t post the same thing twice, what’s causing the delay?
Forget my last post about trouble with comments. I figured out it is my browser cache causing the problem.
Anyway, in response to your post.
I agree that social stigma would not disappear as a result of legalization. Nor would the fear of health problems associated with drug use.
But to use social stigma as a determinant of legality is a dangerous precedent because it relies on the whims of the current majority, or the vocal minority, and has no foundation in law. Prohibition in the 1920’s is a fine example of social stigma used as the sole determination for legality.
So your brother’s only crime was one where there was no victim other than himself? Your brother’s only crime was possession? And you think possession alone is enough to send someone to jail?
According to your own account, your brother was not deterred by jail, he was caught. He got busted. It was only after the fact that he saw the error of his ways. But even then, what harm, other than to himself, had he done to deserve losing his freedom?
The fact that he changed his life around is wonderful — we can only hope he succeeds in helping others do the same.
good page http://www.g888.com
Dedicated to providing parents with only the best articles and advice on dealing with their teenagers. The site covers a diverse number of relevant subjects on troubled teenage matters, from the latest news on teen help to parenting strategies one may use in dealing with defiant teens.