Posted on 03/28/2006 10:51:21 PM PST by goldstategop
Getting high can be bad. Putting people in prison for it is worse. And doing the latter doesn't stop the former.
I was once among the majority who believe that drug use must be illegal. But then I noticed that when vice laws conflict with the law of supply and demand, the conflict is ugly, and the law of supply and demand generally wins.
The drug war costs taxpayers about $40 billion. "Up to three quarters of our budget can somehow be traced back to fighting this war on drugs," said Jerry Oliver, then chief of police in Detroit, told me. Yet the drugs are as available as ever.
Oliver was once a big believer in the war. Not anymore. "It's insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again," he says. "If we did not have this drug war going on, we could spend more time going after robbers and rapists and burglars and murderers. That's what we really should be geared up to do. Clearly we're losing the war on drugs in this country."
No, we're "winning," according to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which might get less money if people thought it was losing. Prosecutors hold news conferences announcing the "biggest seizure ever." But what they confiscate makes little difference. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons -- do we really think we can keep them out of all of America?
Even as the drug war fails to reduce the drug supply, many argue that there are still moral reasons to fight the war. "When we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans," said President Bush. But the war destroys American souls, too. America locks up a higher percentage of her people than almost any other country. Nearly 4,000 people are arrested every day for mere possession of drugs. That's more people than are arrested for aggravated assault, burglary, vandalism, forcible rape and murder combined.
Authorities say that warns people not to mess with drugs, and that's a critical message to send to America's children. "Protecting the children" has justified many intrusive expansions of government power. Who wants to argue against protecting children?
I have teenage kids. My first instinct is to be glad cocaine and heroin are illegal. It means my kids can't trot down to the local drugstore to buy something that gets them high. Maybe that would deter them.
Or maybe not. The law certainly doesn't prevent them from getting the drugs. Kids say illegal drugs are no harder to get than alcohol.
Perhaps a certain percentage of Americans will use or abuse drugs -- no matter what the law says.
I cannot know. What I do know now, however, are some of the unintended consequences of drug prohibition:
1. More crime. Rarely do people get high and then run out to commit crimes. Most "drug crime" happens because the product is illegal. Since drug sellers can't rely on the police to protect their property, they form gangs and arm themselves. Drug buyers steal to pay the high black market prices. The government says alcohol is as addictive as heroin, but no one is knocking over 7-Elevens to get Budweiser.
2. More terrorism. The profits of the drug trade fund terrorists from Afghanistan to Colombia. Our herbicide-spraying planes teach South American farmers to hate America.
3. Richer criminal gangs. Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone. The gangs drug prohibition is creating are even richer, probably rich enough to buy nuclear weapons. Osama bin Laden was funded partly by drug money.
Government's declaring drugs illegal doesn't mean people can't get them. It just creates a black market, where even nastier things happen. That's why I have come to think that although drug addiction is bad, the drug war is worse.
What public health problems are caused by recreational drug users?
Still not causation. Thanks for playing.
Ironically, it's the drug warriors AND the drug dealers who BOTH benefit from drug prohibition. The former get lifetime employment opportunities, with potential for career advancement as the anti-drug bureacracy grows year after years dispite it's ineffectiveness, and the latter benefit by virtue of the prohibition making their product scarce, and thus highly profitable. Illegality also makes it easy for them to eliminate pesky competition; all they have to do is drop a dime on their competitirs, and the drug warriors put them out of business for them, assuring them continued high profit margins.
That's what makes the WOD so diabolical -- it makes the law enforcers and the law breakers defacto allies, neither of which benefitting from legalization.
WOD reads like the wars in the book 1984... always at war, we are winning, must push on... load of crap.
Half of the federal budget is spent on drug treatment and prevention. The other half is overseas drug interdiction and local border patrol. Which of these federal efforts would you want to eliminate?
99% of drug arrests are done by the state in enforcing state laws against drug use. Those state laws were passed by the state legislatures in response to the will of the people. Perhaps you believe that the people of a state should not be allowed to decide how they'll live?
Our laws are not based on whether the behavior "bothers" other people. We, as a society, decide on what behavior is acceptable -- whether it bothers others or not.
This is not just a home run...it's a 'splash hit!'
I'm a father of a recovering heroin addict and I agree with John. In a truly free society, people are free to make stupid personal choices and suffer the consequences. If we, as a people, lack the moral fiber to avoid massive drug or alcohol abuse, how shall a war on drugs and alcohol save us from same?
I think if we ended the WOD today we would see neither an increase nor decrease in drug abuse.
Is that Fascist or Commie. I get mixed up.
I do, occassionally.
It was my idea to deputize every American adult citizen (who wants to participate) as a bounty hunter and pay them $1000 tax free for every illegal they bring to INS. Since illegals cost us about that much every year, we'd break even the first year and make money every year after that -- enough for a fence and the annual budget to patrol it.
Well, to be fair, liberalism absent a monarchy to act as an executive power is, historically speaking, a fairly recent invention. Besides, I believe in the Libertarian version of Utopia about as much as I believe that you can pitch in the big leagues without a decent change-up. I'm a pragmatic libertarian, my friend.In Real Life, we can never remove ourselves from those who mean to govern us. The only thing we citizens can do is restrict our government's power to interfere into our lives to an absolute minimum. Under our form of government, where governmental power and individual rights collide, without a compelling, legitimate reason to exercise power, individual rights must triumph over the power of government to interfere. Otherwise, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
. . . because it's far easier to make excuses than it is to take responsibility for your behavior.
That philosophy, of course, would also support the legalization of gambling, pornography, prostitution, gay marriage, and a host of other issues (polygamy, bestiality, etc.). Do you also support those?
"I think if we ended the WOD today we would see neither an increase nor decrease in drug abuse."
Unlike years ago, our society today relies on the law to guide behavior. How often have you heard, "Yes I did that and it was wrong -- but it wasn't illegal!"?
Legalizing an activity implies societal acceptance. It certainly allows for justification in the sense that the attitude is, "If it's legal I can do it and don't you dare impose your morals on me".
Given that, if we ended the WOD and legalized drugs, I would guess that drug use would at least double, if not triple. Keep in mind that in 1979, drug use was over double was it is today -- and it was illegal. Enforcement of the drug laws and a public attitude change (just say no) was all that lowered it.
And you propose eliminating those two factors.
I referred to the edition related to the topic. However, you are certainly free to discuss the version that affects you more.
Overrun? No. But it was about .5% of the population, higher than today.
"People bought the stuff and made their own medicines with it."
And became addicted. Many didn't know what they were buying or what was contained in these elixers. Manufacturers like Coca-Cola didn't realized how addicting their beverages were.
"The government created the problem"
No, the government ended the problem. More correctly, they reduced the size and scope of the problem by about 90%.
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.