Rethinking The Drug War (John Stossel Hits Home Run In Argument Against Futile WOD Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 03/29/06 | John Stossel

[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.

[robertpaulsen]

"Paulsen, you keep repeating your idiocy about limits ~only~ on the feds, -- when Article VI clearly says that State laws & constitutions notwithstanding, our US Constitution is the "Law of the Land"."

Yes, the US Constitution -- the contract between the states and the federal government -- is the law of the land and binding on both parties. But not all parts of this contract apply to the states. That's silly. You're silly.

[robertpaulsen]

"who gets to decide on what the list of "right choices" is."

The majority, working within the framework of constitutional laws.

We, as a society, decide which rights we will protect, bearing in mind that protecting a right places a burden on society -- everything from enforcement and incarceration of those who violate your right to the consequences of your freedom to exercise that right.

We choose not to protect your right to do drugs. If and when a majority of the people decide that we should, then we will. Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

[tpaine]

The original intent (a phrase you so dearly love) of the U.S. Constitution was to define and limit the powers of the newly formed federal government.

Paulsen, you keep repeating your idiocy about limits ~only~ on the feds, -- when Article VI clearly says that State laws & constitutions notwithstanding, our US Constitution is the "Law of the Land".

It was not meant to restrict the police powers of the states.

The 10th says that powers are prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States. -- Powers to deprive people of rights to life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Yes, the US Constitution -- the contract between the states and the federal government -- is the law of the land and binding on both parties.

Thanks for finally admitting the obvious.

But not all parts of this contract apply to the states. That's silly.

Yep, - it's silly of you to claim that as the issue. -- Police powers that infringe on individual rights are the issue. -- Those type of powers are Constitutionally prohibited.

You're silly.

You're being childish again bobby. Shame on you.

[tpaine]

We, as a society, decide which rights we will protect ---
We choose not to protect your right to do drugs. If and when a majority of the people decide that we should, then we will. Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.

Paulsen posts his version of the Communitarian Manifesto.

[DuckFan4ever]

...who gets to decide on what the list of "right choices" is.

The elected legislature. We are a representative democracy and a nation of laws. Our representatives decide issues like speed limits, levels of flouride in our water, and many other issues. We do have a vested interest in assuring a civilized society that we can raise the next generation in
If someone wants to drop out of society for ever then he is free to do so. If someone chooses a life of self destruction within society, then society has a right to remove such a person once they start becoming a cancer on society. Skid row wasn't built by those who follow the rules, but we all have to suffer for the actions of those who choose to live in ways we deem inappropriate for a polite and civilized society.

As for your quote about the free man owning himself, well that's the position a secular progressive would take. In fact, I believe I've heard NARAL's Kate Michaelman use some form of that same quote.

[davesdude]

what a poor argument...presuming somebody is doing drug because he's in favor of particular party...the argument of cost effectiveness, jail overcrowding, and (most of all) the "failure" to arrest every drug dealer and seize every kilo of drugs are still good arguments no matter what you put in your body...i don't sufer from the WOD because i live in quebec and i can smoke pot as i want, most people do, and still am one really productive member of society, but i do have sympathy for those who get in jails when they should be treated for a health problem, because it is really what it is, that's it. If you didn't experienced with drug you cannot say the opposit.

You guys are still stuck with a religious mentality that leads nowhere...God (whoever or whatever it is) doesn't want us living as dead people, he wants us to LIVE!!! I am a really balanced person, i make choices reasonabely but i am not putting my limits where the governments puts them because they are not balanced, they have a motive of profit...How do you want to trust somebody with a profit motive???

[bigfootbob]

Same to you! Sometimes I feel like I surrounded by insane people. Keep doing the same thing over and over, (75 years!) expecting different results...Wow.

[Zon]

First of all, your first and last sentences completely contradict each other.

Atta boy! That' was exactly my point. And you got it. Pat yourself on the back.

 "It's a war against inanimate objects...no wait, it's a war against people, not inanimate objects"

English 101. It's not, "not inanimate". Rather, it's animate. Just animate.

Applying your "logic", all encounters between police and citizens is "a war against people". People commit the crimes. People get arrested. People do time.

In order to follow my logic you have to address the difference between a crime where a person initiates force against another person and consensual crime where no person initiates force against another person. In other words, each person involved in consensual crime agrees to participate. Whereas with violent crime at least one person is forced to participate against their will -- without consent.. The WOD is a war against people that consent to participate with one another and persons that act alone to ingest drugs.

I don't see the license to use drugs as an "inalienable right" that is (or should be) protected. 

That's obvious. Inalienable right to do with hones body and property as one chooses so long as their actions do not initiate force against another person or their property. In other words all persons evolved in an activity must consent.

Do you really believe that you would have been praised a champion of freedom if you had lit up, shot up or snorted up in the days when Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin walked the earth? No? I didn't think so.

More of your imbecilic rhetoric. Those real men would not have prohibited  drugs anymore than they would have prohibited alcohol.

Do you use the founding fathers as an infallible litmus test? In other words, everything they enacted or didn't enact was always right all the time. No, you don't believe that because you know that they were wrong to not prohibit slavery.

The purpose of government is to protect people from one another. Government cannot protect people from themselves.

You advocate enlisting government agents to initiate harm/force against people that have not harmed anyone but perhaps themselves. The act of ingesting drugs harms no one but the user. Don't give me the communitarian/socialist pap about increasing health care costs for the community because fat people are worse in that regard as are tobacco users and alcohol users and a list of others.

It's not a war against inanimate objects. It's a war against people.

Educate yourself.. Here's some audio/video links from retired drug warriors -- LEOs that were in the trenches.

http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm 12 minute video introduction. Powerful

The most cognizant way to handle the drug problem I've heard: [Video] Jack Cole Audio/Video presentation of "END PROHIBITION NOW!"

[Video] Peter Christ, Rotary Club Presentation, Stockbridge Massachusetts.  Peter Christ, a retired LEO and founder of LEAP.

Drug legalization reduces the violent crime problem. Education and outreach address the drug problem. 

[mugs99]

I don't see the license to use drugs as an "inalienable right" that is (or should be) protected. Do you really believe that you would have been praised a champion of freedom if you had lit up, shot up or snorted up in the days when Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin walked the earth?

LOL!
Those were "inalienable" rights when Madison, Jefferson and Franklin walked the earth.
.

[davesdude]

Your post is good as long as you assume government is not misinforming us, which is unfortunately not the case...I am an ex pot user we could say, i am just tired of doing it, and i have read what your government is telling about that evil pot and i can tell you there's a lot of BS, and a LOT! Those advertisment against weed are also BS, if you are interested (as you look like an intellignet person) just ask me... Our advertisement in canada "against" drug alchool and gambling are proposed this way: "some choices may lead nowhere, make the right ones" this is I believe a lil more "Freedom thinking"... They are not dictating us what to do with subjective propaganda...and so here we want to legalize but we cannnot put it in the list because of what country you think???

Guys wake up!

[mugs99]

drop in marijuana use

ROFL!
March 9, 2006 – Washington, DC, USA Washington, DC: Marijuana production and the amount of cannabis available domestically are on the increase, according to the National Drug Intelligence Center’s (NDIC) 2006 “National Drug Threat Assessment” report. The report finds that marijuana production in Mexico, Canada and the US is rising, with domestic cannabis production increasing sharply in 2005 to its “highest recorded level.” Marijuana availability is also increasing, the NDIC finds. Among those state and local law enforcement agencies polled in the study, 98 percent rank pot’s availability in their area is either “moderate” or “high.” Last year’s NDIC report estimated that between 12,000 and 25,000 metric tons of marijuana is available in the United States.

Where is that drop?
.

[Bogey]

The WOD can't be won. Even if you make drugs illegal doesn't mean people can't get them; it just makes things worse.

---

Employers are firing smokers that won't quit.
They have the ability to do the same thing to people that use drugs. Due to health cost or the fact they just don't like dopers. They may not like the fact that a employee hasn't cared that the activity they have indulged in has been illegal. What else illegal does this person engage in?

If they require you to take a drug test every week to remain employed, what difference does it make if it's legal?
You still can't do drugs, and keep your job.
While most companies drug test lower level employees, that will drastically change.
Everyone up the food chain will be tested. Insurers will require it.

Stats to support policy are easy to fake. Particularly in the name of social engineering.

Just because it's legalized, doesn't make it better.
It will probably become far worse.
Smokers can buy black market smokes far cheaper than legal ones.
Legalized drugs won't be any different.
High risk behavior, you know.
We all pay for it.

[davesdude]

I was smoking pot and i am still working...even been promoted to 50 k a year plus commission, a car, and plenty of dental, medical insurance and more...Even if they tested me, i was still doing the job! So firing an employee because he makes personal choices at his home is not right and you got to understand that! Of course i was more at risk to get fired beacuase if they a decrease in my production they would have something against me, but that motivated me to do better! So what was wrong with me smoking pot, and what's more, really heavily!!! please i really want to know!

[robertpaulsen]

Certainly if it was hard to get, you'd conclude that it was due to increased use. So, allow me to say that since the amount of pot available is increasing, that means the use must be down.

There's your drop.

[davesdude]

they are refering to pot produced...and from my surroundings, let me tell you pot use is not dropping, i don't know anybody (grand mother, uncle, ants, father, mother, friends, neighbours, postman, pizza guy, brothers and sisters 16 yrs old and more, cousins, and on and on) that doesn't lite it up once in a while or every day...and they are all living a pretty good live economically speaking, because people here do not fear drugs and did not create a minority of users...we are still made of the same blood and flesh and we were all born the same way...we just don't live the same way and that shouldn't be a problem or a purpous to put people aside...when people are not left alone (or in jail) they do not screw their life up even if they do drugs...get off the stereotype...

[robertpaulsen]

"So what was wrong with me smoking pot"

Well, my guess would be that your company probably has statistics that show that employees who do drugs (at home) end up costing the company more in insurance (health and car), sick days, productivity, on the job accidents, disability, and poor attendance.

Since it's their company, they decided that they would prefer non-drug users as employees.

I find it interesting that you would choose to smoke marijuana, risking that nice job of yours.

[Still Thinking]

Even if the WOD were winnable, would it be worth it at the cost of weakening Constitutional civil rights recognitions, handing the gubmint more powers, and raising generations of sheeple who think that that extent of government power is natural and right? Methinks NO. Make that HELL NO!

[robertpaulsen]

"Those were "inalienable" rights when Madison, Jefferson and Franklin walked the earth."

If they're inalienable, they're God-given and can't be taken away.

If the right to do drugs is an inalienable right, like life or liberty, would you deny that right to 12-year-olds? You wouldn't deny the right to life or liberty to 12-year-olds, correct?

Hmmmmm. Maybe the right to do drugs isn't an inalienable right after all. Maybe it's merely a natural right which may or may be defined and protected by society (government).

[MD_Willington_1976]

I do not partake in the leafy green... though I did grow up with it within my social circles in British Columbia... Funny how the guys that had a few doobies just wanted a buck or two to get a snack, while the other guys that got loaded on cheap Vodka all wanted to have my fist or knee smash into their face repeatedly...

[davesdude]

then why did they kept me??? tell me! i am still with that company and i am not the only one who did drugs! they just understood that if somebody is bringing dough on the table there is no reason in sending him back to welfare! or do you have a reason to send this profitable person back to welfare? please do not use the stereotype of drug users being a time bomb...