Posted on 07/06/2012 4:52:57 PM PDT by BfloGuy
From the New York Times article, "Numbers Tell of Failure in Drug War the War on Peaceful Americans Who Voluntary Choose to Use Intoxicants Not Currently Approved of By U.S. Politicians and Government Officials":
"When policy makers in Washington worry about Mexico these days, they think in terms of a handful of numbers: Mexico’s 19,500 hectares devoted to poppy cultivation for heroin; its 17,500 hectares growing cannabis; the 95 percent of American cocaine imports brought by Mexican cartels through Mexico and Central America.
They are thinking about the wrong numbers. If there is one number that embodies the seemingly intractable challenge imposed by the illegal drug trade on the relationship between the United States and Mexico, it is $177.26. That is the retail price, according to Drug Enforcement Administration data, of one gram of pure cocaine from your typical local pusher. That is 74 percent cheaper than it was 30 years ago.
Prices match supply with demand. If the supply of an illicit drug were to fall, say because the Drug Enforcement Administration stopped it from reaching the nation’s shores, we should expect its price to go up.
That is not what happened with cocaine. Despite billions spent on measures from spraying coca fields high in the Andes to jailing local dealers in Miami or Washington, a gram of cocaine cost about 16 percent less last year than it did in 2001. The drop is similar for heroin and methamphetamine.
These numbers contain pretty much all you need to evaluate the Mexican and American governments’ “war” to eradicate illegal drugs from the streets of the United States. They would do well to heed its message. What it says is that the struggle on which they have spent billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of lives over the last four decades has failed.
Most important, conceived to eradicate the illegal drug market, the war on drugs cannot be won. Once they understand this, the Mexican and American governments may consider refocusing their strategies to take aim at what really matters: the health and security of their citizens, communities and nations."
I agree with you that government goons can screw up badly.
But I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even with the libertarian utopia of CS’s at Seven-Eleven, government would still have intrusive “safety and efficiency” rules. The Netherlands, supposedly so tolerant of drugs, has lots of anti-drug laws and even bans some drugs because they cause “health and social problems.” Hey, you Dutch fascists, why not let the people decide?
If we’re worried about government power, legalization could be a legal nightmare. It could lead to more arbitrariness and brutishness, not less. The attacks on innocent asthma inhalers are trivial by comparison.
“There will ALWAYS will be boundaries that most people won’t cross.”
..but when a hit of heroin is about the same cost as a 12-pack of beer, and much much easier to obtain for an underage kid, you are encouraging people to cross some boundaries that they may not otherwise cross.
“The states should be setting those policies within their borders instead of the federal government, agreed?”
You tell me how that would work.
When a guy gets addicted to heroin in Nevada and moves to California goes on disability and welfare for the rest of his life, assuming he stays out of jail, then why wouldn’t one seek to regulate heroin federally? There may be drugs that might be state controlled, but why bother, really?
I don’t think the “collect taxes” argument holds water.
If we could dismantle the welfare state, I might change my mind.
“So do you endorse the expansive Commerce Clause as being consistent with its original meaning? Yes or No.”
I’m not for trafficking in heroin. It is too damaging to people and society - I doubt any state would allow it to be legal so the question is moot for now.
If it’s ok to make drugs legal, it should be ok for employers to test for it’s use and make employment or continued employment decisions on that basis, among other things. I’m generally libertarian on drugs - if there is a healthy dose of personal responsibility - and of course there never is in a big government environment.
How that fits in with the Commerce Clause, I’m not sure, but forgive me if I don’t ask Chief Justice Roberts for his opinion.
I would think out of respect for the Constitution, you would at least satisfy yourself that a fedgov policy does not violate it before you lend your support.
The same expansive Commerce Clause that authorizes feds to regulate intrastate drug policies, also authorizes feds to control health care, education and the environment. Without it, we wouldn't have Obamacare bearing down on us right now.
So do you endorse the expansive Commerce Clause as being consistent with its original meaning? Yes or No.
“So do you endorse the expansive Commerce Clause as being consistent with its original meaning? Yes or No.”
Didn’t I already answer this question, albeit, not with your desired binary selection, but I’m pretty sure I answered it anyway.
Are you for legalizing heroin as “commerce” if a state says it should be legal there? Should beer be harder to get than heroin for a teenager that wants it? Should marijuana be cheaper than a bottle of liquor?
You did not, but no matter; let's try this: Which section of the Constitution do you believe delegates to Congress the power to regulate intrastate drug policies?
Are you for legalizing heroin as “commerce” if a state says it should be legal there?
Yes.
Should beer be harder to get than heroin for a teenager that wants it?
My personal opinion is 'no', but regulatory decisions such as that belong to the States, not Congress, per the Tenth Amendment.
Should marijuana be cheaper than a bottle of liquor?
I don't know and don't care. Let the states decide such tax and regulation questions, rather than Congress.
“You did not, but no matter; let’s try this: Which section of the Constitution do you believe delegates to Congress the power to regulate intrastate drug policies? “
They don’t have it under the Constitution, of course. However, they also don’t have the power to provide federal food stamps, for instance either. That food stamps and other extra-Constitutional welfare programs are in place and that such “great society” programs provide a good deal of the cash for the drug trade (my opinion) is part of the larger problem of which you speak.
Federally funded, or partially funded drug treatment would also have to be eliminated, as would “disability” and other safety net programs that allow a drug user to not feel the full force of their personal choices and addictions.
To delve further into the hypothetical, legalizing heroin, for instance, would require an entire retooling of certain criminal statutes - whereby (as an example) petty theft while positive for heroin would require a lengthy prison stay - in the name of personal accountability.
While states can, theoretically, legalize drugs under the Constitution, they would court disaster for themselves and their neighboring states if they were creating legions of heroin addicts who by virtue of other extra-constitutional entitlements were not subject to the limiting factors of personal responsibility.
So while we don’t generally disagree on the merits of states rights, to me, you cannot eliminate a single element of extra-constitutional government intervention - you have to get rid of all of them. I don’t think states or citizens are ready for that yet. We can argue if that matters, but that is where we are at this point, in my opinion.
The extra-constitutional aspects of the drug trade cannot be argued alone without catastrophic societal consequences (enabled by “safety nets”) in my opinion.
So rather than argue that, I choose to look at the practical aspects. Are “legal” alternatives to drugs taxed too much - and does that taxation encourage “illegal” drug use?
It’s not the argument you want, but in my opinion, it’s the argument we have.
So you believe the Constitution delegates no such power, yet you support fedgov using such unconstitutional power for a policy you support.
“So you believe the Constitution delegates no such power, yet you support fedgov using such unconstitutional power for a policy you support.”
Really? Me thinks you extrapolate too much.
Ok, I’ll play.
You want to legalize drugs (though no state has actually done so in the broad sense), but you don’t want users to have any personal accountability for their use?
Typical internet conservative......individual liberty for me, collective responsibility for my actions.
See how that works?
Nope, it's what you said. In reply to the question, "Which section of the Constitution do you believe delegates to Congress the power to regulate intrastate drug policies?“, you said, "They don’t have it under the Constitution, of course". And you did say you supported fedgov prohibition.
Therefore, you support a fedgov policy you believe to be unconstitutional.
“And you did say you supported fedgov prohibition. “
Really?
I think you must have hallucinated this one into your reality.
So do you support the States deciding intrastate drug policies, rather than the feds?
“So do you support the States deciding intrastate drug policies, rather than the feds?”
Read my previous posts, not the ones you invented out of thin air. There answer is there.
Particularly #85 and #89.
We are so far off the constitutional reservation that we have to reel it all back at once, which will be nothing short of revolutionary. This includes the issues dear to your heart.
So was your answer ‘states’ or ‘feds’? It has to be one or the other. Just say it.
“So was your answer ‘states’ or ‘feds’? It has to be one or the other. Just say it.”
You sure do like to argue. Did you put on your jackboots just for me?
In other words, certain violations of Constitutional limits may serve as excuses for retaining other violations. I think we do disagree on the merits of states rights.
As far as I know, employer testing is legal and unchallenged. Do you have reason to think otherwise?
It's like watching a train wreck. A disturbing vision of single minded destruction, yet you cannot look away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.