ZOT: How Do We End The War On Drugs?

about.com ^ | Andrew Somers

[patdor]

Once we understand that the War on Drugs is an abject failure, the question arises, what can we do? What is the solution for ending the drug war?

The answer is very simple.

The core issues of crime and other social ills of the drug war come directly from the black market, not the drugs themselves. The black market is created by, and in fact encouraged by, the socio-economic effects of prohibition (called the “War On Drugs”).

As a result, the cure can only come by ending prohibition. But ending prohibition does not mean a sudden "free for all" of "legalization".

When alcohol prohibition was repealed, it was replaced by regulations and tax statutes that restricted distribution and maintained purity and dose (alcohol content by percentage). It also placed the methods of regulation for sale to the public largely in the hands of local and state governments, where it rightly belongs.

As a nation we are a very diverse culture. The values and cultural heritage of the east are different from the south and are quite different from the values of the west. The result is that federal level recreational substance laws fail in their ignorance of underlying social issues that are highly variable across the nation.

In other words, each state and locality should be afforded their own means of dealing with issues relating to drug abuse.

Thus, ending drug prohibition will be handled much like the end of alcohol prohibition - with the strict regulation and taxation of the manufacture, distribution, and sale of recreational substances.

The model of alcohol

For instance, comparative analysis of even the most pessimistic studies of marijuana show it to be safer and more benign than alcohol. Therefore it’s easy to see marijuana regulations mirroring those for beer and wine.

Hard alcohol is regulated more strictly than beer and wine, and certainly there are substances that should receive stricter regulation than marijuana. Soft drugs such as MDMA (Ecstasy), Psilocybin (Mushrooms), and Peyote, would need stricter regulation - along the lines of hard alcohol, which has significant restrictions on public use and distribution.

The very hardest of recreational substances, (i.e. the drugs with the highest physiological addiction rates, such as cocaine and heroin), would be regulated and distributed only by the government and directly to users. This distribution would seriously undercut, and virtually end, the black market for these drugs. This would greatly discourage the creation of new drug addicts.

It’s important to consider this last aspect of ending prohibition most thoroughly. It is the demonized “hard drug” user that the prohibitionists point to when declaring that the drug war must be continued.

[_Jim]

Okay, let's talk about alcohol prohibition. Do you believe ...

Geesh - IF you had read this thread from the beginning - you would *know* my answer to this question/my position on this issue (you'll find it within the first 50 replies to this thread I believe).

[Conservative til I die]

They're usually so stoned out of their minds that you can't really make heads or tails of what they are saying.

I give your troll post negative 3-stars.

BTW, William F. Buckley is pro-legalization. Apparently I've heard that Jim Robinson himself takes a slightly pro-legalization stance (forgive me if I am wrong on this). Are they both stoned out of their minds and nonsensical, as you claim?

[Conservative til I die]

Stop using drugs.

Stop drinking and smoking cigarettes.

[Conservative til I die]

The states can do whatever they want to, we still have states and dry counties where alcohol and drinking is regulated at the local level.

And notice that this way makes much more sense? If you don't like the way your town runs it's drug or alcohol policy? Well, you can always move to the next one, or at least do your partying in the next town. Plus, it treats the town or city as an extension of the individual, allowing associations of people to choose to live the way they see fit.

It also allows for an easier shift in policy. If the town's current policy isn't working, then the voters will be able to change it much more quickly and effectively than with the federal government.

Much better than a nonsensical nationwide policy.

[Conservative til I die]

Hmmm, just signed up on 2 Jan 04 and this is your first post. You must feel strongly about this issue.

As subtle a "You aren't welcome here" or "Watch your back" warning as I've seen in awhile.

I have as much right to judge what's a suspicious post as you, and as a libertarian-leaning conservative Republican (with a few years logged in here, just so you're satisfied), I say this dude's post passes conservative muster.

[Conservative til I die]

The American people overwhelming support interdiction and incarceration as the best remedies to control and reduce the spread of illegal drugs in America today. (Pew Survey, Feb.2001)

You responded specifically to the man's point that "the War on Drugs is an abject failure" with this statement. I don't see how the popularity of a policy correlates to its success or failure.

You also realize that a majority of the electoral college elected and re-elected someone like Bill Clinton and that 150 years ago, an entire region of the country supported slavery, right?

Sometimes the majority of the people are wrong.

[Conservative til I die]

Sorry Jim, you'll have to do better than one man's opinion (and that's all it is, no more important than yours or mine) on the convoluted, subtle ways that drug use hurts others.

When we talk of "damage" and "harm" we're not talking about emotional unfulfilment of spouses of addicts or the decrease in work productivity of addicts, we're talking about things like assault, battery, murder, rape, etc. Not something vague like a subtle fraying of the emotional and moral fabric of our culture.

[Conservative til I die]

IF drug use HAD NOT been a problem - would laws restricting drug use have materialized?

Yeah, too many "jigaboos" and "wetbacks" smoking the demon weed and playing their demon music and attracting our "white wimminz."

Some good reasons that drugs are illegal is manipulation, racism, and xenophobia.

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." Harry Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics testifying to Congress in 1937.

[Conservative til I die]

I wouldn't honestly be surprised if a lot of today's drug warriors on FR are subtle or closet racists. I don't mean to sound inflammatory, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Many of bring up the unsavory element that abuses drugs. And I don't think it's rich Kennedys or Rush Limbaugh that they're thinking of.

[_Jim]

Yep, and who gets to define "problem"?

VERY little law, IMO, is written NOT to solve some perceived, real, imagined or actual 'problem' in our political system these days. We could go DEEPLY into the reasons why it works this way (it parallels the the reason why GOOD news merits no press) - but I don't get things done here (like the dishes) if I were to veer off on that tangent.

So, can you cite for us some examples where this is substantially *not* the case?

By this definition, you would support abortion laws and banning of prayer in schools.

I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion. The majority thinking in this country is actually anti-abortion and pro-prayer in schools SO in the absence of 'law making idiots' imposing their will on others - the *right* course of action, IMO, would occur ...

[_Jim]

I don't get your point at all.

You're going to have to spell it out clearer than you did IN LIGHT OF the fact I think indiscriminate inhalation or ingestion of intoxicating substances does more then just violate a few of man's laws on the books - it's an affront to our God the Creator ...

[GLDNGUN]

Groups of immoral people not "trusting" others to make good choices is a bizarre concept. The other behaviors you cited were those that violated other's rights. Some idiot smoking grass doesn't violate any of your rights

Why is it short-sighted people take their wish for legal drugs to its logical conclusion?

Question: IS drug abuse a problem in this country, YES or NO?

Question: Would legalization make drug abuse MORE or LESS of a problem?

Question: Is it just pot you want to legalize? If so, then you are hypocrite. After all, "some idiot smoking X doesn't violate any of your rights". (X=any drug)

Question: With heroin, crank, cocaine, PCP, etc. all legal, would you live in a better country?

Question: With all of the new drug addicts you've created, where are they going to get the money to pay for their addictions? The same place current addicts do? From committing violent crimes?

Question: To avoid addicts committing crimes for drug money, would you have all drugs be legal and FREE? If not, you're GUARANTEEING a MAJOR increase in crime. If FREE, how many addicts are you willing to support with your taxes on a monthly basis?

Question: Would your drugs be FREE and LEGAL to minors?

Question: If your drugs would NOT be free and legal to MINORS, how would keep them away from the drugs? Certainly, you wouldn't be in favor of having laws on the books that you don't want enforced. If you DO want those laws enforced, then YOU are suggesting a WAR ON DRUGS. Let me guess - you are one who now derides the current WOD, right? Good. Can I deride yours now?

[_Jim]

Some good reasons that drugs are illegal is manipulation, racism, and xenophobia.

How about something a little more grounded in reality: like DUIs, operation of any kind of powered equipment, and then fact that some of these compounds can really muck up the mind ...

(I don't know where in the hell you guys are getting this racism crap from either.)

[Conservative til I die]

You're going to have to spell it out clearer than you did IN LIGHT OF the fact I think indiscriminate inhalation or ingestion of intoxicating substances does more then just violate a few of man's laws on the books - it's an affront to our God the Creator

Sorry, we don't live in a theocracy. And I'm a conservative and believing Catholic saying this.

PS- Muslims think their God wants all Christians and Jews dead or subjugated. Some also believe in killing gays and adulterers. Is this the game you want to play? Tyranny of the religious majority? It's a rather dangerous game.

[Protagoras]

Utopia is not an option.

And I have no intention of becoming embroiled in a flame war with you over the same old tired nonsense.

[_Jim]

Me: You're going to have to spell it out clearer than you did IN LIGHT OF the fact I think indiscriminate inhalation or ingestion of intoxicating substances does more then just violate a few of man's laws on the books - it's an affront to our God the Creator

You: Sorry, we don't live in a theocracy. And I'm a conservative and believing Catholic saying this.

In light of the exchange above - I think you're dysfunctional.

[Conservative til I die]

In light of the exchange above - I think you're dysfunctional

Why? Becuase while I believe in religious morality, and while I believe that our legal and social system is based on our religious system, that I don't believe in a theocracy?

As a Catholic, my Church believes that remarriage is adultery and an affront to God. It also believes that homosexuality is a grave sin. Do you propose that we make both illegal, punishable by imprisonment?

[waterstraat]

I dont agree that they should be illegal, I am just saying that the federal government has no authority to make it illegal, there is nothing in the Constitution to give the federal government the power to make any substance or object illegal.

On the other hand, all powers not specified in the Constitution are reserved to the states, like it or not.

Thus, the states can make things illegal, as long as it does not violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The states can make alcohol illegal if they want to , but not guns, machine guns, assault weapons, etc. because that would conflict with the the Second Amendment.

By reserving the power to the states, yes, you can move, and still be an american, and states would compete with each other on how much "freer" each state would be.

[Conservative til I die]

I don't think I've ever seen a post more devoid of logic and reasoning, and based in mere personal opinion (in the form of your loaded questions) than yours.

[_Jim]

What do the words: "it's an affront to our God the Creator" mean to you anyway?

YOU missed a LARGE point I was trying to make because of a mote in your eye, brother.