ZOT: How Do We End The War On Drugs?

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 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When alcohol prohibition was repealed, it was replaced by regulations and tax statutes that restricted distribution and maintained purity and dose (alcohol content by percentage).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.

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.

How about something a little more grounded in reality: like DUIs,

Many, if not most DUIs involve alcohol. Notice that your example goes to illustrate the point that there can be proper and logical delineation between responsible and irresponsible use of intoxicants. Drink in your house? Fine. Get sloshed. Drink in a bar? Fine, drink 12 shots of vile 100 proof hard liquor. Take a cab home after getting drunk? Cool. Get in a car and drive? No way Jose. This is obviously different than outright 100% prohibition, which is nonsensical in saying that because sometimes some people go over the line and because some people do bad things on an intoxicant, the only answer is to completely ban it.

some vile operation of any kind of powered equipment,

I don't know if there are specific laws that deal with driving machinery while intoxicated, but since most of this machinery is work-related, there are big penalties for operating machinery while drunk, such as the threat of a lawsuit or disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.

and then fact that some of these compounds can really muck up the mind ...

Alcohol can muck up the brain both short term and long term. Ever meet a chronic, long-time alcoholic? Some of them are barely coherent or functional.

Your post actually serves to illustrate why legalization with common sense laws and regulations attached work, and outright bans are illogical.

The example of alcohol is a perfect illustration of how laws regarding the ABUSE of intoxicants can work. You wouldn't propose an outright ban on alcohol, would you, to solve all the problems related with alcohol?

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.

I look at the whole issue of drug policy on a three-step basis. First, *CAN* the federal government regulate drug policy? By and large, no. Second, *CAN* the states and cities regulate drug policy? Yes. Third, knowing the answer to the first two questions, *SHOULD* the government regulate drugs and how much? Well, that's up for debate.

My personal belief is that pretty much all drugs should be legal. How legal? Well, it depends on the drug and the issues around it.

There's a difference in my mind between regulation and legality. But I accept that something must be legal for it to be effectively regulated.

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.

I think you and I are essentially in agreement. I think devolving issues to the states, cities (and by extension, the individual) leads to much more freedom and flexibility than a rigid (and of course, UnConstitutional) system of a monolithic, federal policy of legislation.

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

Sorry, we don't live in a theocracy. Being a Catholic, I was taught to respect the country that I live in and its system of government.

I agree drug abuse is an affront to God. Being illegal or legal in the United States will not change that. If I want to be moral in the eyes of my God, I don't require a law from some Congress to decide that for me.

Maybe it's you that needs to re-examine the strength of your faith, "brother," since you're the one that needs secular laws to keep you on the righteous path.

Tell me, would you start smoking crack and shooting heroin if it one day became legal?

Tell me, would you start smoking crack and shooting heroin if it one day became legal?

My daddy lived in a time, when all drugs were legal, when machine guns were legal, and did not buy either one of them, and no one he knew at school, or work, or any of his neighbors did either(except for laudinum which was used for medical purposes).

Drugs actually were much less commonly used/misused back when they were totally legal.

People are no different today than they were 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, or back in the time when Soloman was writing that people dont change.

There is no reason to think that there has been a huge evolution in humans from 1900 to 2004, and that todays people are any more smarter or dumber that those of 1900, and no reason to expect that they will misuse drugs any more (or less) than the americans of 1900 when we had no drug laws.

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

Take it as you will. I have read the posts here without signing up a lot longer than I've been posting here, and new folks whose very first post is so controversial just stick out like a sore thumb. I know where most of the third rails are on FreeRepublic, and do my best to steer clear of them. Conversely, my nickname for those who don't is "extra crispy."

I say this dude's post passes conservative muster.

patdor
This account has been banned or suspended.

An opinion is every (wo)man's perogative.

I did read the whole thread -- I'm still not clear about what your view is on alcohol. My assertion is that it can be used for benefit or for detriment. I hate to see the lowest common denominator approach where people who want to use it for benefit are punished b/c of the actions of an irresponsible few. For me, conservatism = individual responsibility, not collective punishment.

ALTHOUGH if we were to properly ARM ourselves the 'criminal' ranks might be substantially reduced in size due to 'attrition' doled out by the law-abiding citizenry on the spot during attempted robberies and the like

We are in complete agreement here. The problem is that laws intended to protect stupid people often don't, because the stupid (and evil) don't respect the laws. So, as always, it's the law abiding citizens using (guns, alcohol, cars, oxycontin) responsibly who are punished -- and the stupid people just carry on.

Sorry, don't mean to spam you -- but I had one more discussion point: there's an option in addition to what we have now or legalization. It's decriminalization, and it would replace taxpayer-funded housing for addicts (i.e., jails) with a ticket. I don't support legalization for hard drugs, because then they would be actively marketed to people in a more sophisticated fashion than dealers can swing. And decriminalization would not solve all the problems. But I think it would at least address the most Constitutionally destructive aspects of WOD without turning us into Amsterdam. In the meantime, take the $$ we currently spend building prisons for nonviolent offenders, and spend it on anti-drug education instead.

Yes, but bear in mind that alcohol is legal and freely available to those over 21. That says something about the product.

In some states, it is required to obtain a license in order to carry a concealed weapon. That says something different about that product.

Oxycontin is legal, but only available with a doctor's prescription. Again, an even different message.

Unfortunately, in today's society, legality carries with it a certain "approval". In other words, "If it's not illegal, then I can do it and don't you dare pass moral judgement on me". We need to keep that in mind in our legislation.

But, that wasn't the point of my post. The point was that it's foolish to think that the legalization of marijuana "solves" problems. It doesn't. Like alcohol, it would merely transfer those problems to other areas.

It stems from this statement that you made:

"A problem arises and some elected representative rises to the occasion to propose a solution."

So which is it? Do elected reps rise to the occasion to propose solutions to problems by passing laws, or are laws passed by these reps for other reasons? Which side are you going to take?

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

Yes, how about lowering DUI levels of BAC to 0.08. The problem of DUI is clearly at 0.15 or higher. Once it gets to 0.10 or lower the deaths involving alcohol occur at the same rate as the deaths not involving alcohol. Another example would be the zero tolerance laws in the schools, solutions to imagined problems.

Then again, according to your statement an "imagined" problem is as substantial a cause for a law as a real "problem".

Of course, I have the opinion that most laws passed and enforced are not in the best interest of society, rather they are about revenue generation.

"And notice that this way makes much more sense?"

Well, if we're going to write laws based on what makes sense, then I believe our current drug laws meet that requirement.

One state, cocaine is legal. The adjacent state it's not. Oh yeah, that'll work. That "makes sense".

The only reason the alcohol laws work the way they do is that alcohol is legal in all 50 states. If alcohol were legal in only 5 or 6 states, we'd have border problems and you know it.

Even in your example, people drive from a "dry" town to purchase their alcohol then drive home with it.

Get series.

"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)"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Five posts earlier, you cite Willam F. Buckley as pro-legalization -- like that means something. And you have the cojones to admonish _Jim for doing the same.

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

I couldn't find those reasons in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. IIRC, Congress listed different reasons.

When are you going to stop raising this strawman?

"Not trying to insult you or anything"

I took it that way, especially when your response agreed with Ecliptic's statement.

He said, "Regulation does not necessarily lead to no black market."

You said, "Think the drug lords in South America or Asia will stop selling drugs in this country just because they have competition from the government? Of course not!!"

Tell me what's different.

"People are no different today than they were 100 years ago"

Sure they are. And the society they created is different.

Is there a stigma to being pregnant and unmarried? There used to be.

Is there a stigma to abusing drugs? This behavior used to be kept secret.

In today's society, not only is there no stigma (hell, it might even be considered a hate crime), but WE support that behavior with social programs. Subsidize a behavior, get more of it.

Now, could it be that "Drugs actually were much less commonly used/misused back when they were totally legal", not because they were legal, but because they weren't socially acceptable or supported by the taxpayer?

First, get rid of the nanny state. Then, and only then, should we debate the legalization of drugs.

"The problem is that laws intended to protect stupid people often don't"

The law is written ostensively to protect the stupid, but it doesn't apply to them.

When stupid people started using a hair dryer while in the bathtub, laws were written to place warnings on the hair dryer -- they were not written to make the behavior illegal.

The only reason the law was written was to protect the manufacturer from the previously successful lawsuits.

So, tell me all about a free people not needing all these laws.

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.