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.

[xzins]

One always has to wonder if the effects of the WOD are not the desired results.

That aside, there are real dangers to alcohol abuse. Drunk driving kills, suicide has a high correlation with alcohol, abuse is correlated with alcohol....I'm sure there are others.

It is fair to find ways to control these behaviors by controlling who can use alcohol and when and where they can use it.

For example, we limit alcohol to 21 and older.

Is anyone proposing that teens be allowed to use cocaine, heroin, etc., or is the plan to control at those ages and only permit for older ages...like with alcohol?

[SUSSA]

Are there actually people who shoot up heroin and do not end up addicted?

###

Yes

[tonycavanagh]

Its called the Rave culture, its part of America and Europe you can look it up on the Internet its full of facts and figures.

[Steve Van Doorn]

" For the same reason the laws changed in the '60s: the middle class parent whose spoiled brat can do no wrong won't tolerate their pretty kids in jail."

that isn't a reason

[Ken H]

I'm a recovering addict and former all-around bad guy who comes equipped with a conscience now, and I have to go where my conscience takes me.

What legal penalties do you advocate for possession of illegal drugs? What about small time dealers who sell to support their habit?

[Carry_Okie]

that isn't a reason

It may not be a 'logical' reason, but in politics, it's a reason.

[Carry_Okie]

Interesting point, but my take that it's a comparison of two radically different cultures with very different preferences in the use of mind altering substances.

I'll do some homework and get back to you.

[Zon]

Note the emphasis on, ON USERS

Carry_Okie: When this country enforced draconian drug laws ON USERS there wasn't a problem. 

When middle class parents wailed about junior's 20 year sentence for a joint, those laws changed.

They don't have a problem in Singapore. Guess why?7

Changed your tune. Now you make a leap to violent crime -- a real criminal act against a victim -- while under the influence.

Carry_Okie: I'm not for making possession, sale, or use illegal, but I AM in favor of heavy penalties for damages done to others while under the influence subject to due process of law. If you call that a police state, get a grip.49

The violent act is the crime, not the drug use. Glad you see that. Now acknowledge the error you made in post 7.

If you think you or your property have been damaged by a person's act of ingesting drugs -- perhaps while they were sitting in their home -- take them to court and try to convince an impartial jury that you were harmed and the extent of that harm so that you may gain restitution for your loss. 

[rusty millet]

You make broad generalizations - support your arguments with reality. The rave culture is our future?

Get real.

[Carry_Okie]

Changed your tune.

No, I wrote that piece over a year ago.

The violent act is the crime, not the drug use. Glad you see that. Now acknowledge the error you made in post 7.

OK. I see your point and shouldn't have written it that way.

[tonycavanagh]

re :The rave culture is our future?

Is it, first I have heard that.

But I guess your use of the word get teal means you are much younger than me so maybe you know more about what future society will be.

[liberty2004]

materialistic worldview fueled by a welfare state mentality and cultural disregard for laws and personal property. Your solution? Everybody must get stoned! Don't be a simpleton.

welfare state mentality? I stated the welfare state is a big part of our problem. I would ask, where in my posts did I EVER say everyone get stoned. What a ridiculous statement. I wish no one would engage in destructive behavior. But, humans are flawed and will do bad things to themselves and others. I have never done drugs and would encourage no one to take them. The major thrust of everyones writing on these posts is about the "effect" on society of this "War on Drugs." You sir, have no ability to read and understand what people write. It's sad you have to view others so simply. I would dare say, look in the mirror and you will see a simpleton.

[Zon]

Nothing quite like a false analogy to show your true colors. Obese people rarely cause any harm to others.

I never said obese people cause harm to other people. Some do. Nor did the post responded to say that drug users cause harm to people. You created a straw man just so you could knock it down. But you already knew that. 

show your true colors.

Pot, kettle, black.

BTW, as I said in post 70 ,obese people do pollute more than non-obese people.

[Ken H]

Interesting point, but my take that it's a comparison of two radically different cultures with very different preferences in the use of mind altering substances.

Earlier you wrote:

When this country enforced draconian drug laws ON USERS there wasn't a problem. When middle class parents wailed about junior's 20 year sentence for a joint, those laws changed.

They don't have a problem in Singapore. Guess why?

Weren't you making the case that Singapore's tough on drugs policy was the reason why they supposedly had no drug problem?

So if they do indeed have a bigger drug problem than the Dutch, it's due to cultural factors?

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Maybe because you were weak and needed to be sorted out by others, that is why you feel strongly about this."

'Weak'? Nope. Strength of will--or lack thereof--has nothing to do with addiction. 'Sorted out by others'? More like sorted out by The Other, but I doubt you follow the reference.

I served, too, so you get no points there, either, if it's a game of manly one-upmanship you're playing. And I'm really at a loss as how to respond to all of that rope-skipping, or the need you felt to share your workout regimen.

Listen: the point I've been making--trying to make--is that in order to thrive, a society must encourage actions and behaviors of its citizens which are beneficial to the common good, not just the good of the individual. And any society, whatever its government, which does not encourage the inculcation of these behaviors and beliefs--commonly called virtues--results in a degradation of that society, either gradual or quick, historically speaking. We see many of the states of Europe more or less disintegrating in front of our eyes because they have lost sight of the truth, and the truth is that civilization falters when character is no longer encouraged, or even understood. The use of mind-altering drugs is a moral wrong, as is gambling, as is prostitution, as is--God help us--abortion. When a government legalizes such things, it gives them moral legitimacy. When it gives them moral legitimacy, it weakens the society upon which it draws its power. And then, paraphrasing T.S. Elliott: 'things fall apart. The center no longer holds.'

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "What legal penalties do you advocate for possession of illegal drugs? What about small time dealers who sell to support their habit?"

I posted earlier about the successful implementation of drug courts in Indiana, my home state. One of the benefits of illegality is that arrest of users and small time dealers brings their addiction into the light of day, or more accurately, to the attention of a judge. It has been found that most folks have to reach a financial, legal, and/or emotional bottom before they will seek or achieve recovery. Throwing addicts in jail brings them to an indisputable bottom. It's hard to successfully rationalize away the existence of a drug or alcohol problem while rotting in a jail cell awaiting arraignment. If put through a drug court process similar to the one in Indiana, the addict (or drunk) either gets clean and sober or goes back to jail. Do I think small-time dealers and addicts should get hard time in state prisons? It depends. Some people simply refuse to recover, although all of the means to do so are made available to them. Someone with numerous DUIs, for example, is clearly a physical threat to the community. Generally speaking, most addicts, drunks, and small-time dealers don't present such an immediate threat. There are qualified people in place to make such evaluations, and experienced judges and prosecutors capable of making such decisions.

[tonycavanagh]

re :if it's a game of manly one-upmanship you're playing.

LOL nope.

your point is the point I've been making--trying to make--is that in order to thrive, a society must encourage actions and behaviors of its citizens which are beneficial to the common good, not just the good of the individual.

I agree to a point, but how far do we go .

I believe in dismantling the welfare state because I believe in teaching people self reliance.

The only actions we need to encourage is get out there and support your self.

But when we try to legislate morals I believe we enter a dangerous area also while not saying you are a socialist or communist when we talk about the common good rather than the individual good isn't that Communists always said to excuse there excesses.

[Ken H]

Were you ever arrested for either drug possession or sales?

[muir_redwoods]

"Yes, it can, but evidently not dramatically enough or quickly enough for the notorious short-commitment span of the American people."

So after 30 years of nothing but failure and the strategic equivalent of pumping 1000's of gallons of gasoline on a house fire you want to keep doing the same thing. How about we let people have the consequences of their actions? How about we take the 40 billion dollars spent and write it off and say "No More!"? How about we stop the wrong-address-no-knock-raids by a paramilitary police that kills or hospitalizes innocent people? How about we simply say to the addicts and junkies, "You're on your own, both help and death are available, take your pick"?

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I vote for sanity.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "isn't that Communists always said to excuse there excesses"

While it is true that authoritarian and totalitarian use defense of the common good as a blanket excuse for killing and imprisoning people, it is also true that there is such a thing as 'the common good'. The realization of the common good is why governments--tribal, monarchical, republican, etc.--exist in the first place. Stripped to its barest, most primitive essentials, the term 'common good' could probably be safely translated as 'protect the women and children', although feminists might take umbrage. In a more modern sense, the meaning--as I understand it--would be 'strengthen the nuclear family', which is the best way we've discovered so far to advance a civilization. Ignoring vice and encouraging a live-for-today attitude among the populace weakens the family unit, which in turn results in the ultimate disintegration of that society. The machine stops.

That's my take on things, anyway.