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When alcohol prohibition was repealed, it was replaced by regulations and tax statutes that restricted distribution and maintained purity and dose (alcohol content by percentage).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

[robertpaulsen]

"The pilgrims were drunk smokers so it is fine for all of us to be drunk smokers."

This deserved a separate post.

No, it is legal for us to be drunk smokers. Who said it was fine? (Moreover, who said the Pilgrims were drunk smokers?)

It is because of that attitude held by you and your ilk that most of the laws are written. You, who think that because something is legal, it's "fine" to do it. No wonder we have so many laws.

What happened to self-restraint? Character? Morality? Self-respect?

You look at the laws and say, "Hey. It's not illegal so I can do it and don't you dare impose your morals on me!", right? I bet I'm right.

[robertpaulsen]

Sorry, _Jim. The post was for the other guy -- I was just copying you.

[Protagoras]

The same old tired nonsense is still nonsense no matter how many times it's repeated.

[CSM]

"What happened to self-restraint? Character? Morality? Self-respect?"

That is the point. Some people show levels of morality and self respec and live by those codes. Some people don't. It is hard to believe, but just because prostitution is legal in Nevada, not everyone is running off to the madam's house.

Now, wouldn't you rather that people chose to be moral and live by a religious code? Or would you rather they be compelled by the barrel of a gun? If the later, how would you be able to tell a real Christian over just a law abiding citizen. Would you like the contempt for Christianity that could be brewed with that barrel?

[robertpaulsen]

"If an ammendment is necessary to grant control to the states over the decision, where is the ammendment that seized this control?"

Amendments don't necessarily offset other amendments.

Ask youself, if the federal government couldn't regulate alcohol, then why was Section 2 part of the 21st amendment? Why not just repeal the 18th and return to the status quo?

"a more accurate interpretation is all that is necessary"

So you feel that the solution lies in the USSC? Maybe. But I'm really getting tired of living under a judicial oligarchy. I'd much rather honor the will of the people expressed through their representatives.

[robertpaulsen]

"Now, wouldn't you rather that people chose to be moral and live by a religious code?"

Of course. Prior to the 60's I thought they pretty much did. We didn't have 10% of the laws we have today.

Too bad that they're necessary. I don't like them any more that you do; mainly because it illustrates how far we've "slouched towards Gomorrah".

[CSM]

"Amendments don't necessarily offset other amendments."

I understand that. However, the only federal powers that are legitimate and can not be infringed upon are called out in the constitution and its ammendments. Anything outside of what is specifically called out is open to the states to decide. Therefore, the current status quo is using the commerce clause to trample the 9th and 10th. (We have had this discussion already).

"Ask youself, if the federal government couldn't regulate alcohol, then why was Section 2 part of the 21st amendment? Why not just repeal the 18th and return to the status quo?"

Because they were specifically stating what originally was repealed and is now reinstated.

"So you feel that the solution lies in the USSC?"

No, I feel the problem lies in the USSC and their misuse of the commerce clause.

"But I'm really getting tired of living under a judicial oligarchy. I'd much rather honor the will of the people expressed through their representatives."

Then you should agree that the commerce clause is being misused and that the people should be able to decide at the state or local level what behaviours to monitor and declare illegal.

[CSM]

"Prior to the 60's I thought they pretty much did. We didn't have 10% of the laws we have today."

So passing more laws would create more morality? Your example proves the opposit. The fact is that people have become lazy. We protect them from others via government intervention, then we give entitlements via the government. Morality has decayed with the increase of government dependence. More laws would just create more decay. If we want to truely be free to be a moral people, then we need to get the Federal government off of the states backs.

[robertpaulsen]

No, the laws were necessary to counter the lack of morality. You think the sexual harrassment laws came first, followed by increased sexual harrassment?

What are you thinking?

[CSM]

The lack of morality reflected in these actions were done by a very small portion of people. Rather than deal with situations on their own, the victims turned to the government. Now, we have a sexual harassment system of laws that no one understands. Try telling a female coworker that she looks nice on a particular day or in a particular outfit and then you can get a paid trip to HR. Yes, the original sexual harassment legislation may have been necessary because of blatant abuses. However, to continually show that the problem exists the laws have been expanded so no one can be human anymore.

Don't misunderstand me. Assualt is assault and any one, male or female that is assaulted should be able to put the perp behind bars. However, a well placed knee in the groin could have solved most of the harassment issues.

In time, sexual harassment would have been deemed socially unacceptable in our society and it would have greatly diminished. BTW, the actions of the pre 60's "moral" crowd you referenced in a previous post was the basis of these laws. The later generations just learned about societal control through legislation and incrementally we have handed the government all the control they need to turn us into robots.

[Pahuanui]

We didn't have 10% of the laws we have today. Too bad that they're necessary

You've been teetering on this edge for some time now, without ever having given any substantiation to the idea that they are, indeed, necessary.

[glorgau]

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!!

The free market would kill the drug lords business.

A decent example is the market for liquor. Are the majority of people going to go out and buy moonshine in plastic jugs, or Jack Daniels (with all its attendent taxes, regulation, marketing, etc.), even though the Jack Daniels is substantially more expensive? The market will pay a premium for product quality.

[robertpaulsen]

How about that?

[robertpaulsen]

Oops. I meant "How about that!"

[glorgau]

Wanna stop the war on drugs? Stop using drugs

OK, I'll stop. Now what about the XX other million people over which you and I don't have personal control?

P.S., I ask this rhetorically :-)

[Conservative til I die]

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!!"

I didn't make the second statement. He did.

And who are you? His mommy? His lover? Let the guy defend himself.

[Conservative til I die]

I couldn't find those reasons in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

I wasn't aware marijuana and other drugs became illegal only in 1970.

[Conservative til I die]

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.

Wrong, as usual. Go read the post again. My cite of WFB was not necessarily to sway him. I was taking him to task for referring to all pro-legalization proponents as stoners. Is WFB a stoner?

[Conservative til I die]

You believe drugs are socially acceptable today? Where do you live, a crack den?

BTW, by your logic, if they are becoming more acceptable despite their continued illegality, doesn't that tell you maybe it's morality and values that matter, and not the laws in this case?

[Conservative til I die]

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.

So by your logic, we should make federal laws requiring fast food joints to post their nutritional info to protect from stupid fat peoples' lawsuits.

You really think you're a small goverment conservative?