The "War on Drugs" has failed - time to consider legalisation?

The Sun (UK) ^ | NIGEL INKSTER, Ex-Assistant Chief of MI6

[ctdonath2]

No, the problem isn't that it hasn't eliminated the problem, it's that the cure is worse than the disease.

[ctdonath2]

The Constitution does not empower the government to ban them. Ergo, legal. Taxed up the wazoo like whiskey, perhaps, but not banned. Remember: it took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol ... and then the ban was reversed because the consequence of Prohibition was worse than prior & subsequent legality. This time around we've [improperly] dispensed with the Constitutional amendment, but the consequences are similarly bad. Nobody is saying legalization is harmless, but it is less harmful and easier to manage & mitigate.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Unless someone takes the position that all substances of whatever nature should be legal for all people of whatever age or condition to produce, possess or give to other people, then one must get into the difficult matter of making distinctions among substances that are to be regulated and with respect to whom and how. Therefore, there will always be a “war on substances.”

If you want to call our current policies with regard to the drugs alcohol and tobacco "wars," go ahead. The point is that those "wars" don't rob adults of their rights, cost taxpayers several tens of billions of dollars every year, crowd our prisons, or substantially enrich criminals - so those are the sorts of "wars" we should fight against other drugs.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I am against selective application of it. All or nothing.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should consistently apply the Tenth Amendment. But why can't we allow ourselves to get there one step (for example, medical marijuana) at a time? Must we make the best the enemy of the good?

[A Strict Constructionist]

“You meant to post to another person maybe?”

Correct and with my apology.

[A Strict Constructionist]

“the argument needs to be made in light of the Consitiution, freedom and liberty, not whether or not this faux war attained its goals.”

Now I can comment to the correct person. I agree completely, too many people forget that the Constitution is silent on many subjects and those are left to the individual or the states. Too many people on the right and the left want to make laws that suit their personal opinion and violate the Constitution. I prefer to make my on choices and then if I get it wrong God can tell me and make the final judgement. I don’t need man to force me.

[Ken H]

I am against selective application of it. All or nothing.

Then you must be supportive of SCOTUS upholding Obamacare, since to strike it down would be selective, rather than all or nothing. After all, it does nothing about federal control of education, the environment, tobacco etc.

[Jay Santos CP]

Are you kidding? 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?

Better response than I could have offered.

[Persevero]

“Then you must be supportive of SCOTUS upholding Obamacare, since to strike it down would be selective, rather than all or nothing. After all, it does nothing about federal control of education, the environment, tobacco etc. “

Incorrect, it is a new breach.

I fear that if the feds suddenly stop prosecuting drug crimes, the citizens of each state, who, according to polls, want recreational drugs to remain illegal, will find themselves suddenly unprotected. There are no laws extant on the books, presumably. The people they have elected and the bureaucracies which are entrenched were not elected or appointed with drug policy in mind. Therefore the citizens are vulnerable to policies being implemented with little to no say on their part.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I fear that if the feds suddenly stop prosecuting drug crimes, the citizens of each state, who, according to polls, want recreational drugs to remain illegal, will find themselves suddenly unprotected. There are no laws extant on the books, presumably.

You presume incorrectly.