Posted on 04/18/2012 1:18:55 PM PDT by sussex
A FORMER British MI6 chief has joined growing calls to end the “war on drugs” and consider legalising them. The battle has left tens of thousands dead in Latin America but failed to reduce drug-use around the world. Here Nigel Inkster, of the International Institute For Strategic Studies, argues that we need to rethink our approach to narcotics.
(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...
The War on Burglary has failed even worse in the UK. They might as well take that off the books too while they’re at it.
Give up the most valuable authoritarian tool of all when we are finally on the verge of implementing the totalitarian Utopia we have striven for for so long?
So what do you think of the use of the expansive Commerce
Clause to impose national prohibition in the US?
Also, we have a failure on the War on Murder. People are getting killed, every day. And our jails are full of those doing the killing, at a terrible cost to taxpayers.
Why not just tax contract hits? Our economy would improve, and we’d save so much money not prosecuting and jailing murderers.
There was never a war on drugs. It’s ‘fought’ like the war on terror and war on poverty - spend lots of blood and treasure while not really trying to win.
Methinks those who advocate legalization should find another excuse to do it, like inceasing tax revenue, get corruption out of gov’t, or something.
The war on murder and rape are so old and useless
Justice Thomas had it right in his dissent to the Gonzalez case in 2005.
|
|
Legalization, while enabling regulation of sales, would crash the high profits of drug dealing. Think of all the smugglers, dealers, and gangs that would defunded.
Amsterdam generally had a handle on local drug use. Their problem was “drug tourists” who would go there to party and be obnoxious. But the drug use of local residents was quite tame, especially with the “soft” drug, marijuana and hashish. Those that used it only used small amounts.
Importantly, their overriding attitude was one of “public safety”, which set their priorities. Though “hard” drugs were illegal, the government had set up testing centers, so if someone purchased, say, heroin, they could provide a small amount to be tested to determine purity and concentration of the drug, without being hassled about it.
BUT, if the sample provided was cut with something harmful, they would demand to know who provided it, so they could prevent them from harming others. And they were very serious about that.
Importantly, were the government of the UK to try a similar approach, it would need some modification. Mostly against the British government’s obsession with surveillance and compiling dossiers on everyone. If they tried stunts like that, the public would continue to deal in black market drugs and shun legalized sales. And they cannot be blamed for that.
That is, government intrusion is even more harmful than drugs. Which of course brings up the government of the US.
Since alcohol prohibition, these prohibitions have resulted in the loss of many civil rights—directly because of government control of these substances. If they are ever to be legalized or decriminalized, there must be a detailed analysis and effort to reverse these resultant civil rights intrusions.
“The War on Burglary has failed even worse in the UK. They might as well take that off the books too while they’re at it.”
Here’s the difference: burglaries have victims. If justice doesn’t demand drug laws and the only point is social engineering, you expect at least for it to work. If everyone who wants to can get high despite the law, what is the point?
“There was never a war on drugs. It’s ‘fought’ like the war on terror and war on poverty - spend lots of blood and treasure while not really trying to win.
Methinks those who advocate legalization should find another excuse to do it, like inceasing tax revenue, get corruption out of gov’t, or something.”
I can’t follow your reasoning here. The War on Terror and the War on Poverty not working are good reasons to get rid of them, too.
There is no federal war on rape. Do you want to use the Commerce Clause to federalize the crime of rape, like we do with drugs... YES or NO?
“except when the user commits crime to afford his drugs”
Yes, and the thing about those crimes is that they are crimes. They will still be crimes when drugs are legal.
What’s driving the direction of this issue is the fact that a significant number of people don’t equate drug use (particularly pot) with rape and murder...they equate it with alcohol use.
Narcotics consumption is, as it’s always been, a supply and demand issue.
Thus far, we’ve focused on eliminating the supply, or rather, attempting to. I really don’t see a lot of success in that endeavor.
So we must then address demand, and what we must ask ourselves is the simplest of all questions; “Why do people want to get high?”
Is it because they feel their life is intolerable, or depressing, or whatever, and they utilize narcotics as a means of escape from the drudgery of their daily grind?
Or is it, as I believe personally, that altering one’s state of consciousness and perception is intrinsic to human nature? Arguably, people choose to alter their perceptions of the day-to-day realities of life through methods such as contemplation of philosophical abstractions, religious rites, meditation, the list goes on and on. Some alter their perception of reality on a smaller scale, through a beer after work to relieve the stresses of the day, or as I do, by smoking a Marlboro when I get stressed out.
If, as I believe, the desire to alter our perceptions of reality are fundamentally basic to our being human, then the logical answer is to legalize narcotics. Personally, I’d rather see possession and consumption decriminalized at the Federal level, and let the states do as they please. When all is said and done, I do not believe that any government, any man has the right in any way whatsoever to tell me what I can and cannot put in my body; the job of government is not to save people from themselves.
I am well aware of the arguments against it; what if some hophead kills someone while they’re high? You put them in jail, same as you would with anyone else. For me, intoxication is no excuse to commit crimes. I’ve been drunk, and yes, I’ll admit, high, and never once on those rare occasions have I felt the irresistible urge to out and rob a 7-11 at gunpoint.
The “War on Drugs” has become little more than a catch-all excuse for various forms of petty tyranny. Put an end to it, and reclaim some measure of freedom.
Agreed-The war on murder is a failure. Besides, its just a way for the government to get involved in our personal lives. They should just tax it.
I know potheads.
That is why I am opposed to legalization.
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.