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

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.

All in all, i know it is hard for a conservative mind (note the word mind, i am not talking about the political party) to change position on a subject that has been around for more than 75 years, but THERE IS NOTHING CRIMINAL ABOUT TAKING DRUGS. You have been lied to, all these year about the effects of some of those drug, just get over it (i know it is hard to get the image, of rampant drug use and the decline of a society, out of your head but really it is only what it is, an image, as i don't understand how people would start all of a sudden to do drugs, just take yourself as an exemple... the proper education would constantly be educated to people and now more aware of the potential harm of the substence)... If you never tried it, don't bother with it, you don't know what you are talking about, it's not as devilish as our precious government tend to say...

Yet, under the influence of a drug, if your responsability level is low enough, and you go in public and harm either the property or any living behing (including animals) obviously this person should be harshly punished, as an exemple...So this would reduce the abuse made against casual or recreational responsible user... The black market would go down without a doubt and this doesn't take grade 10 to understand it! All the specialist in criminal matter are saying it. What politicians have to say about this is not considerable: profit motive or lack of experience on "the field". So if you are still not convinced after reading all of the post on this forum well, you are maybe one of the people that has a job to lose if that drug war ends... Still we need to get rid of these drugs, i totally agree 200% with that...But war is not the answer to all our problem...It is for a lot of violent issue (irak maybe...) but if still we consider we are going to get rid of drugs with war we are retarded... Nobody can say the opposit on the fact that drug related violence has seen an increase since drugs has become illegal...this argument alone is a proof that this war is going in the wrong direction and we should put an end as soon as the black market would not be able to compete...

Read Whitaker Chambers' review of 'Atlas Shrugged' for the definitive conservative critique of that work, which I'm sure is available on the 'net somewhere.

Your 'authority', Chambers, was not a constitutional conservative. At best he can be seen as a communitarian.

If I recall correctly, the last few pages of Rand's turgid opus, 'Atlas Shrugged' deal with a re-writing of the Constitution along lines more amenable to her philosophy. So if you're one of those objectivist libertarian types for whom 'Atlas Shrugged' is holy writ, --

Rest easy my boy, -- I'm not. -- I don't support re-writing our Constitution. [except for repeal of the income tax]

Insofar as my comment on dismal libertarian electoral performance is concerned, I was pointing out--albeit in a roundabout way--that in our type of government, the value of political philosophies is measured by the vote; the vote is the coin of the realm.

Yep, thats how 'majority rule' people think. Thanks for sharing.

Er, yes, I'm one of those majority rule people. Blame it on that pesky Constitution you invoke with such faux piety.

Communitarian 'majority rule' dogma is not based on our Constitution. You people ignore our rights to life, liberty, & property in your 'rules'.

Ergo, libertarianism--as a party, as a platform, as an ideology--is pathetically penniless. I'd use the term 'bankrupt', but that would imply that at some point in the past, the libertarians actually had something worthwhile to say.

They still do. They support our constitution & individual liberties. -- However, I do not support the 'party'. -- I support our Constitution.

I, - like most libertarians, welcome debate. Its infantile bashing, like yours, that initiates flame wars.

You wrote, "Its infantile bashing, like yours, that initiates flame wars."

No flame war here, and certainly nothing infantile--my arguments against the objectivist libertarian fringe are as carefully structured and clearly written as I can make them, given the brief response time allowed by a news board format. I simply won't let skewed logic pass, particularly when it comes from Ayn Rand acolytes attempting to disguise themselves as political conservatives.

And what, by the way, do you mean by the term 'communitarian'? As in commune, as in somehow socialist? Is that particular term some form of Rand-speak invective, sort of like Scientology's use of the term 'Agents of Chaos' to describe its enemies? It's common among cult members, I suppose, to invent their own semantic shorthand for concepts perhaps alien to the public at large.

Rest easy my boy, -- I'm not.
-- And I don't support re-writing our Constitution. [except for repeal of the income tax]

Yep, thats how 'majority rule' people think. Thanks for sharing.

Er, yes, I'm one of those majority rule people. Blame it on that pesky Constitution you invoke with such faux piety.

Communitarian 'majority rule' dogma is not based on our Constitution. -- You people ignore our rights to life, liberty, & property in your 'rules'.

And what, by the way, do you mean by the term 'communitarian'? As in commune, as in somehow socialist?

Read much? Enforcing community standards that ignore individual rights is indeed a socialistic type violation of Constitutional principles.

Is that particular term some form of Rand-speak invective, sort of like Scientology's use of the term 'Agents of Chaos' to describe its enemies? It's common among cult members, I suppose, to invent their own semantic shorthand for concepts perhaps alien to the public at large.

They still do. They support our constitution & individual liberties. -- However, I do not support the 'party'. -- I support our Constitution.
I, - like most libertarians, welcome debate. Its infantile bashing, like yours, that initiates flame wars.

No flame war here, and certainly nothing infantile--

You boldly say I have a "faux piety" for our Constitution and infer that "cult members" oppose majority rule. That's infantile trolling.

my arguments against the objectivist libertarian fringe are as carefully structured and clearly written as I can make them, given the brief response time allowed by a news board format.

Brief? -- You can make your arguments any length you want..

I simply won't let skewed logic pass, particularly when it comes from Ayn Rand acolytes attempting to disguise themselves as political conservatives.

There you go again with the petty pejoratives. Childish.

Using the term 'cult members' when describing proponents of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy is not a 'petty pejorative'. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck: you folks have a fearless leader who serves as a 'fountainhead' of indisputable truth, you make up your own specialized terminology to capture concepts peculiar to your, er, philosophy; e.g., 'communitarians', you shrilly cry foul when forced to argue that philosophy on its merits, and--just as Scientology, for example, claims legitimacy by describing itself a religion--Ayn Rand acolytes claim legitimacy by framing themselves as Constitutional conservatives.

As an aside, your piling on of previous posts with every response is getting rather tiresome. Is wearing your opponents down with sheer repetition a a debating tactic encouraged by the high command at Objectivist Central?

No flame war here, and certainly nothing infantile --

You boldly say I have a "faux piety" for our Constitution and infer that "cult members" oppose majority rule.
That's infantile trolling.

I simply won't let skewed logic pass, particularly when it comes from Ayn Rand acolytes attempting to disguise themselves as political conservatives.

There you go again with the petty pejoratives. Childish.

Using the term 'cult members' when describing proponents of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy is not a 'petty pejorative'.

It is when addressed to me, as I am not a Randist.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck: you folks have a fearless leader who serves as a 'fountainhead' of indisputable truth, you make up your own specialized terminology to capture concepts peculiar to your, er, philosophy;

Your, "er", bit reminds me of another peculiar FR anti-libertarian, -Mojo-, long since banned. He too loved snide asides. -- Any relation?

e.g., 'communitarians', you shrilly cry foul when forced to argue that philosophy on its merits,

Not true, I welcome debate on libertarians vs communitarians, as do most of us here at FR.

and--just as Scientology, for example, claims legitimacy by describing itself a religion--Ayn Rand acolytes claim legitimacy by framing themselves as Constitutional conservatives.

I've yet to see anything posted by you that counters such libertarian legitimacy.

As an aside, your piling on of previous posts with every response is getting rather tiresome.

It is necessary because you like to misquote what was actually written. If you would learn how to present your counter-arguments, this could be avoided.

Is wearing your opponents down with sheer repetition a a debating tactic encouraged by the high command at Objectivist Central?

No, its a way to keep trolls honest, and on point.

"No, its a way to keep trolls honest, and on point."

That's what, twice, three times you've made the troll accusation? Why? Because I think Ayn Rand is full of baloney? Whatever it is that her worshipfulness preached, it wasn't remotely conservative.

Caught the implied threat when you brought up Mojo. I guess you're implying that I'll be booted from the forum should I insist upon taking issue with the irresponsible laissez-faire morality of the libertarians--particularly when it comes to the legalization of drugs--or the downright wackiness of the Objectivist crowd.

I've been on-point, sport, consistently throughout. If you truly believe I'm a troll (although a troll for whom, I'd be curious to know), then take action. Threats bore me.

You troll:

Your, "er", bit reminds me of another peculiar FR anti-libertarian, -Mojo-, long since banned. He too loved snide asides. -- Any relation?

Caught the implied threat when you brought up Mojo.

You did? A threat? Weird.

I guess you're implying that I'll be booted from the forum should I insist upon taking issue with the irresponsible laissez-faire morality of the libertarians--particularly when it comes to the legalization of drugs--or the downright wackiness of the Objectivist crowd.

Not at all. Mojo was booted because he couldn't control his pejorative trolling of ~everyone~. He was slightly, 'er', wacky that way.

e.g., 'communitarians', you shrilly cry foul when forced to argue that philosophy on its merits,

Not true, I welcome debate on libertarians vs communitarians, as do most of us here at FR.

and--just as Scientology, for example, claims legitimacy by describing itself a religion--Ayn Rand acolytes claim legitimacy by framing themselves as Constitutional conservatives.

I've yet to see anything posted by you that counters such libertarian legitimacy.

As an aside, your piling on of previous posts with every response is getting rather tiresome.

It is necessary because you like to mischaracterize what was actually written. If you would learn how to present your counter-arguments, this could be avoided.

Is wearing your opponents down with sheer repetition a a debating tactic encouraged by the high command at Objectivist Central?

No, its a way to keep trolls honest, and on point.

That's what, twice, three times you've made the troll accusation? Why?

Because that is what you're doing. This is a WOD thread, and you're trolling for a flame war about libertarians.

Because I think Ayn Rand is full of baloney? Whatever it is that her worshipfulness preached, it wasn't remotely conservative.

So you claim, an admitted 'majority rules community standards' type anti-conservative yourself. -- Our Constitutional principles 'rule' in the USA.

I've been on-point, sport, consistently throughout.

Bashing libertarians is on point?

If you truly believe I'm a troll (although a troll for whom, I'd be curious to know), then take action. Threats bore me.

No "threats" to you have been made. And calm yourself, as I don't use 'abuse' to win arguments.

You wrote, "Bashing libertarians is on point?"

In my view, libertarians occasionally have something to bring to the party--their staunch defense of personal liberty and loathing of big brother-type governance is refreshingly free of internal contradictions--they're nothing if not consistent; however, libertarian insistence upon freedom as an idealized absolute ignores the point of government and governance in the first place--an arrangement wherein boundaries upon behavior are established for the good of the whole. It's all or nothing with a libertarian, who--at least in this regard--has more in common with socialists than they would like to admit. The thing is, Americans as a people don't like extremes, left or right, which pretty much explains the electoral appeal of socialists and libertarians.

I look at the Ayn Rand-worshipping crowd, on the other hand, as a radical fringe group that calls itself conservative in order to cloak itself in mainstream respectability. Their ideal--at least from what one can gather from Fearless Leader's essays and novels--resembles a kind of technocracy led by Hank Reardon- and John Galt-like ubermenschen. Which is fine, I suppose, if one is a John Galt or Hank Reardon in such a world, but few are. So what about the rest, the not-so-bright and the not-so-inventive and the not-so-beautiful? More importantly, what about those who disagree, should an Ayn Rand-inspired polity somehow come about? I would imagine the same thing that has happened to malcontents and misfits in authoritarian states throughout history. So much for freedom in such in a world.

Further, you didn't address the consequences of buying dope: who profits, who dies, or the effect on whole communities where drug use is rampant. The absurdity lies with you: an inveterate dope smoker hiding behind a smokescreen of do-what-thou-wilt libertarianism.

Criminals profit, criminals die, and communities go to hell when criminals establish and fight over markets to sell their product. This is less a result of drugs than it is of the Drug War. And I hide behind no smoke screen: I'm a free man. I do what I will.

Lastly, you've used a tone bordering somewhere between patronizing and accusatory when referring to my former political beliefs, as if those once-held views somehow taint my arguments now. I tell you what, when I did become a conservative, I never imagined I would hear another conservative proudly boast of buying and using drugs.

I'm sorry, but your former political beliefs color your current ones quite vividly. You haven't become a conservative so much as you've switched allegiance to a different master---in other words, you've traded one form of statism for another. You might be a Republican because now you pull the lever for the GOP, but "Republican" and "conservative" are not necessarily one and the same.
The very core belief of conservatism is that sovereignty resides in the individual. Does not individual sovereignty include the right to determine what goes into one's own body?

I've heard the word 'sovereignty' thrown around quite a lot, sometimes by hiding-in-the-bunker, quasi-Posse Commitatus types on the lookout for black helicopters, sometimes by reasonable people with legitimate concerns about personal liberty: e pluribus unum and all that. I believe you're the latter, a reasonable sort, and appreciate your position, however much I disagree. That said, individual sovereignty is bounded by laws, which are a means of governing the polity as a whole. Laws exist because people don't play well together without them. From what I've gathered, you claim no law should exist that prohibits folks from doing a thing (fill in blank) that causes no harm to another. I claim that legalizing currently illegal drugs causes a great deal of harm to others partly because such supposedly 'harmless' behaviors by individuals ultimately degrade the framework upon which our government--and by extension, our communities, our nation, is built. I write 'partly' because the other part is the moral aspect. Most laws have a basis in conventional morality--specifically, the 10 Commandments, which was the primary basis for English Common Law--although one can argue that Moses acted as much on reason, common sense and understanding of human nature as he did from Divine inspiration. You can argue against the moral basis of the law all day, but even if your arguments prevail in the polls, what--by the end of that day--have you won? Our freedom, according to the Founders, is 'endowed by our Creator'. Take away laws or make laws that detract from that very concrete basis for the freedoms we enjoy, and we won't enjoy them for long.

And yes, I do equate the Republican Party with conservatism. I hold that the laissez-faire individualism you advocate isn't conservative at all. It is, in fact, borderline radicalism with only a hairsbreadth difference between extreme libertarians and outright anarchists.

From what I've gathered, you claim no law should exist that prohibits folks from doing a thing (fill in blank) that causes no harm to another.

You mistake me for a doctrinaire Libertarian, my friend, which I am not---I've never read one word of Ayn Rand and I think market forces provide a pretty poor underpining for a political system. While I hold with the general principle that one should be free to exercise his or her rights until they tresspass upon the rights of others, I maintain that the state can and should have the power to prohibit certain types of personal behavior provided it can make a compelling case for doing so. Absent such a compelling case, a society such as ours has to "err" on the side of individual freedom.

In no way do I think the state has made a compelling case for criminalizing the use, possession, or sale of marijuana.

You wrote that laws exist because people don't play well together without them. I agree with that sentiment, but I submit you're forgetting another reason that laws exist: because some people have the power to create them---and by so doing they can profit by exercising control over other people. Not all people support existing drug laws for moral reasons---there's a lot of money at stake here, and that's something you cannot deny. Just as some on your side accuse those on my side of opposing drug laws so we can smoke our pot in peace, I accuse some on your side for supporting drug laws just so they can keep the cash flowing.

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.