We don't need another failed war on drugs

The Daily Star (Bangladesh) ^ | September 25, 2003 | Ron Chepesiuk

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/involved?group=124) ping

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[Wolfie]

Policy makers all over the world are painting themselves into a corner with cigarettes. Sooner or later (sooner, judging by the current pace of events), they'll have to bite the bullet and make tobacco illegal. Should be fun to watch.

[Ol' Sparky]

Considering monthly drug users declined from 26 million to 14 million from 1979 to 2000, according to the National Household Survey, one can hardly consider the WOD a failure.

[Bud Bundy]

I was reading something by Chekov the other day, and in one of his stories a father was admonishing his son for smoking. It's not good for you, he said.

That was written 100 years ago. But the tobacco companies have been concealing this fact and keeping all us poor little sheep in the dark? Yeah, right.

This is just another silly example of politically correct NGO's and their comically misplaced priorities. Did they ever get internet access established in sub-saharan Africa yet? I seem to remember the UN setting that as a goal not long ago.

[ellery]

Typical. Bans on foods with more than 50% fat content will follow.

[jmc813]

Do you support the tobacco laws that are cropping up throughout the country?

[robertpaulsen]

"one can hardly consider the WOD a failure."

Their hope is that if they say it loud enough and often enough, you'll believe it.

Pickings are getting pretty slim when they have to source a story from a Bangladesh newspaper.

[headsonpikes]

Even if one accepts your NHS statistic as 'uncooked', it is a giant and unwarranted assumption that the WOD was the chief, or even sole, cause of that decline.

Offsetting that statistic, in any event, are the incontrovertible facts that millions of Americans now have criminal records who otherwise would not, that tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are expended each year in pursuit of this 'war', and that under this prohibitionary regime, hundreds of billions of dollars are diverted each year through the bloodstained, but untaxed hands of international criminals.

I leave it to the reader to estimate what portion of these unimaginable profits are employed to subvert the political process and the administration of justice.

The WOD is a necessary condition of existing 'business' arrangements; to imagine otherwise is to be a willing participant in your own duping, imo.

[MrLeRoy]

Considering monthly drug users declined from 26 million to 14 million from 1979 to 2000, according to the National Household Survey, one can hardly consider the WOD a failure.

This is the classic logical fallacy of post hoc ergo proter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"). You might as well claim that because home PC ownership rose during this period, home PC ownership caused the decline in drug use.

By the way, did drug use decline after 1992? If not, did the War On Drugs end then?

[headsonpikes]

The gentleman writing for this 'Bangladesh' newspaper at least knows his history, if not his place.

[bc2]

The loss of liberties from the Bill Of Rights, the billions of tax dollars wasted, and the ever-increasing gun control, just to name a few quick issues, show that this is indeed a failure.

Not to mention that prohibitions are not a legitimate function of our Federal Government in the first place.

[MrLeRoy]

What's wrong with Bangladesh newspapers?

"if the information from my [...] source is incorrect, by all means point that out.

"Otherwise, STFU."

[Ol' Sparky]

And, none of that is a good reason to legalize drugs.

There were only three Federal crimes in the history of the nation. Only a fool doesn't see the need for an FBI and some kind of way to charge criminals at the Federal level in the modern world.

[toothless]

"This is the classic logical fallacy of post hoc ergo proter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"). "

Or as my statistics professor was fond of saying, corelation is not causation.

[toothless]

"Only a fool doesn't see the need for an FBI and some kind of way to charge criminals at the Federal level in the modern world. "

Its a living document, don't you know.

[Ol' Sparky]

The law DOES deter crime. The tougher the law, the more the deterrent.

Tougher drug laws and an effort to stigmatize the behavior ARE the reason for the decline in drug use. Someone has to be high on something to think drug use dramatically dropped by random chance.

[ellery]

You might want to look at the statistics more closely before you attribute the fall from 1979 to the WOD.

Fact: the 18-25 age group is by far most likely to have used illegal drugs in the previous month. Fact: the more stringent, modern drug laws didn't go into effect until 1984. Given these stats, it's much more likely that the aging of the baby boom accounts for the 1979 peak (because nothing changed legislatively until five years later).

Fact: The past decade has seen record incarcaration of non-violent illegal drug users. If this approach worked, you would expect to see a drop in use, right? Fact: since 1990, the number of people who report using illegal drugs in the previous month has steadily *increased* in every single age group except the 26-34 category.

Again: the past decade's record drug-user incarcaration = steady INCREASE in drug use = miserable failure.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/index.html

[steve-b]

Tougher drug laws and an effort to stigmatize the behavior ARE the reason for the decline in drug use.

So, you believe the election of George Bush IS the reason the federal surplus has changed to a federal deficit?

(Oops, that should be a period, not a question mark. Having endorsed the notion that correlation is equivalent to causation, you really have no choice but to nod your head in agreement with the previous paragraph.)