[goldstategop]

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. As John Stossel notes, even if you think drug addiction is bad, the cure has has resulted in more crime, more terrorism and the existence of powerful criminal cartels that can do all kinds of things we don't want with illicit money. And our resources could better be spent on prevention and treatment programs than to lock people up for pursuing recreational fantasies with a couple of pills. Its called common sense.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[liberty2004]

The WOD can't be won.

Correct. Milton Friedman had a brilliant writing illustrating the futility of the War on Drugs. I believed he penned it shortly after Nixon stated the idiotic War on Drugs. All the bad consequences he wrote about have come true. Stossel hits another one out the park.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

I am well over three score in age, my entire adult life the big lie of; "we are winning" has been preached by the government." All I see is more & more crime and wasted lives from the drug war.

Same with the war on poverty, nine trillion dollars down the drain, and not a damned thing to show for but the same poverty and misery from the pitiful denizens down on the welfare plantations. But, we do have tens of millions of illegals doing the work Americans are paid not to do. S/

[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?

[Global2010]

I enjoy John Stossels' comentaries.

He has a way of looking at both sides of the coin on many social issues.

[DB]

I've been saying this for some time. Virtually every time I say it here I get flamed...

I think the WOD was Reagan's biggest mistake.

The price has been high in both blood and treasure with little if anything to show for it. One only has to look back at a little history to know what the result would be. Oh well...

[SunnyD1182]

Here's what I don't get: everyone I know- liberal or conservative- thinks the War on Drugs is a disaster, a waste of time, and a horrible idea that must be put to an end. It's probably the one issue everyone agrees on. My question is this: who are the people that are actually supporting this nonsense? There has to be a pretty sizable group out there somewhere, or else this money wouldn't be wasted every year. From what I can see, most people want this fake war ended.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "The WOD can't be won."

Yes, it can, but evidently not dramatically enough or quickly enough for the notorious short-commitment span of the American people. For example, drug courts established in my home state and elsewhere are achieving remarkable results in terms of both recovery and in the reduction of criminal recidivism.

But legalistic and economic reasons aside, one of the reasons I was drawn to conservatism as a political philosophy is because of its clarity of moral purpose. Legalizing drugs is another step on the road to cultural acceptance and affirmation. Look at gambling: the same murderous rats who ran the casinos in Vegas are running the casinos now, only nationwide. Gambling is accepted, even celebrated, with its grubby, loathsome philosophy permeating everything from the Internet to the local 7-11, teaching children that the one thing infinitely better than hard work and study is the luck of the draw. After drugs, I suppose prostitution is next. After all, we're talking 'victimless' crimes, right? And prostitutes aren't really prostitutes: they're 'sex workers', and their johns are 'participants in the sex industry', consumers. That is the logic, correct?

I say we draw the line here, now. Better to fight the good fight and lose than to passively acquiesce. That would be such a European thing to do.

[tonycavanagh]

re :If we did not have this drug war going on, we could spend more time going after robbers and rapists and burglars and murderers.

This has always been my take.

In London we had a operation called Operation Bumble Bee targeting career burglars withing a few months we had cut break ins by 10% and the figure was going down.

Then a newspaper the Evening Standard ran a series of stories about dealers in Soho.

The offshoot was that resources were diverted from BumbleBee and put to use tackling the dealers.

After a man hour intensive five month operation they busted a gang of dealers many were arrested an jailed, withing a week new dealers had taken over.

As a buy product housebreak ins rose again.

[Irish Rose]

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.

And all those drug buyers and sellers would be model citizens if only the evil government wouldn't ruin their fun by banning drugs. Anybody who would steal to get mind- and body-destroying drugs, and anybody who would buy a gun and form a gang to sell them, is either evil or stupid. Chances are they'd end up criminals anyway.

The government says alcohol is as addictive as heroin, but no one is knocking over 7-Elevens to get Budweiser.

If the government truly says this, then the government is definitely wrong. If alcohol were as addictive as heroin, everybody who drank would be alcoholics. Are there actually people who shoot up heroin and do not end up addicted?

[DuckFan4ever]

Stossel is wrong on this issue. People who are intent on destroying themselves need to be locked up. Treatment only for those who want it and show a commitment to it. We aren't responsible for making sure everyone makes the right choices in life, but we are responsible for removing those people from civilized society. The public health problems created by "recreational" users is incredibly damaging.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

I have never understood the WOD. (And let me state that I have NEVER used illegal drugs of any kind.) Who cares if people use? Not me. If they use and then drive under the influence, arrest them for that. If they use and then commit crimes while high, arrest them for that -- and cut them no slack at all, since they chose to use. If they use and it tears up their families, well, what is different about that from people who are alcoholics and tear up their families, or those who are just plain jerks and do the same?

The way to dramatically cut drug use is not to forbid it, but to make it unfashionable. Tobacco use is WAY down, largely because of a public opinion campaign. Once it was sexy to light a cigarette. Now people just think of secondhand cancer. But drugs still have a cachet, since they are the forbidden fruit. Make drug use boring by decriminalizing it and making it available cheaply, and portray people who use them as losers and idiots, and the drug problem will be way down too, just like tobacco use.

[gleeaikin]

Some thoughts on drug addiction based on years of direct observations and training in counseling.

One young white male from an upper middle class family addicted to cocaine took me to the projects when he made a buy. The seller was a poor black woman with two children. Her son was an honor student in high school, and hated what his mother was doing to keep a roof over their head. She used cocaine intermittently for menstrual cramps. The white male had been sexually abused by his mother and physically abused by his successful father who also used cocaine sometimes. He was in constant emotional pain and used cocaine, alcohol and nicotine to suppress it. He often said he wished pot would be decriminalized because it was almost as effective and a lot easier on the body. He is dead now or I would not be discussing his case. On the day of his funeral, his father couldn't wait to get the guests out of the house so he could get drunk.

Everyone I have ever known well enough to know their history, who was addicted to drugs or alcohol, was in a continual state of emotional (and sometimes physical) pain. Any substance which kills pain is addictive to those who are in pain. There is NO such thing as a NONADDICTIVE PAIN KILLER. People whose reaction to pain is to want to be reved up will go to cocaine and crystal meth. Those who want to mellow out and zone out will go to heroin or pot.

Sending people to jail simply increases the pain these people are already in. It is like trying to cure a broken leg by perscribing jumping rope. If it were an enforced detox, it might make some sense, but drugs are easily obtained in prison. Why some prisoner or civil liberties group has not sued the prison systems for failure to prevent those who are jailed on drug charges from getting drugs, I can't fathom. Surely if you are going to jail for drugs, you shouldn't still be getting them. What hypocracy.

There is a major prison industry with a stake in keeping these laws. Most drug use and minor distribution should be decriminalized. Keep penalties for major dealers and selling to minors. Use the empty space to jail the increasing number of illegal immigrants coming from countries with a potential for terrorism. Thus the prison lobby would continue to get its money. Potentially dangerous illegal aliens would not be paroled and disappear. And minor drug offenders would not have their lives destroyed even further. NOTE, I HAVE SAID DECRIMINALIZE, NOT LEGALIZE.

[FreedomCalls]

For the majority of the people behind bars for use only, you have to ask, "is the punishment worse than the crime?" For it seems putting someone in prison for 10 years will destroy his life far worse than if he had used pot for the same time period on the outside.

[SUSSA]

Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone.

It also created the Kennedy crime family that still plagues the nation.

[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?

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

So, if we make drugs legal, do we have LESS drug use? Do we have FEWER impaired drivers on the highways next to us? Do those who work in dangerous occupations, construction, for example, have FEWER fellow workers working carelessly around them? Do we have FEWER parents who cannot supervise or raise children because they are strung out on dope? Do we have FEWER emergency room admissions for overdoses? Do we have FEWER school children using drugs?

Why don't we just make Demerol and morphine an over-the-counter choice like cough medicine?

Who are WE to tell anyone else how stoned they can get or to limit their intake of powerful narcotics, the excessive use of which can kill someone very quickly?

There is a cost to drug use and there are real physical threats to all of us because of the drug impairment of others.

The habitual use of drugs is NOT a victimless crime and it imposes huge social and economic burdens on society.

The tired arguments against the war on drugs IMPLY NO DOWNSIDE to removing all barriers to drug use. THAT IS A BIG LIE!

[Wolfie]

There's always hope. Bush is embracing legalization on the immigration front. Maybe drugs are next.

[pawdoggie]

We're not winning the war on highway deaths: let's get rid of traffic laws and traffic cops! Waste of money.

We're not winning the war on murder: let's get rid of police homicide units, and stop persecuting people with a homicidal lifestyle! Waste of money.

We're not winning the war on property crimes. Let's get rid of police property crimes units, and abolish private property! Power to the people!

[roaddog727]

We tried this once before, back in the 30's. IT was called the Volstead act, commonly referred to as Prohibition. It was a miserable failure as we all know.

What needs to be done is decriminalize (like cigarettes and alcohol)regulate and control. THEN - the government can TAX the sale of these products and realize a REVENUE leading to a POSITIVE CASH FLOW instead of SPENDING to no effect.

This also cuts into the profits of the drug lords as the lowering of restrictions will ultimately lead to a price collapse.

Once again, simple economics. However, not so simple for the babbling boobs in DC.

[robertpaulsen]

"Nearly 4,000 people are arrested every day for mere possession of drugs."

Nearly 4,000 people are arrested every day for drunk driving. And alcohol is legal.