The question is not "are drugs used less now than they were 30 years ago?" Rather, the question is whether drugs are used less than they would be, had we done nothing. If we have constrained drug activity at all - even if you only believe we have made buying illicit drugs slightly less convenient than going to your local Walgreens, then the war on drugs have reduced drug usage.
The question is how much; I believe that the war on drugs, imperfect as it is, has drastically reduced the available drug supply in this country, and kept many potential users from ruining their lives with drugs.
Simple economics will tell us that by increasing the price of something, we reduce the demand for it. Constraining supply through interdiction and enforcement has caused prices to increase, and increased prices have resulted in reduced demand.
Moreover, you could further argue that non-monetary costs: the risk of incarceration and forfeiture, for example, are an additional cost that rational people factor in when they decide to use illegal substances. Most people with something to lose (like most rational, responsible adults, with careers, families, and reputations to worry about) will avoid drugs, for that reason alone. For most people, the non-monetary costs of drug usage are far bigger factor than the actual cost of the drugs themselves.
Of course, the lure of drugs can be compelling, even for people with much to lose, like Rush - or for those with nothing to lose, like those in the inner city, who frequently succomb to the lure of getting high. The answer is not to make drugs more available - That would only exacerbate the problem. We need to both constrain supply through interdiction and enforcement, and reduce demand through the increased price that occurs as a natural function of reduced supply, and by imposing heavy non-monetary costs on use.
I wish him success...
Interesting point, but consider this - If it were proven that ignoring the Second Amendment would reduce crime, would you support doing so? Keep in mind that I'm assuming you were referring to the Federal WOD and not any particular state's anti-drug efforts.
I think things are far worse since we have criminalized it. Gangs run the streets, disease and corruption are everywhere.
Your right the price is higher, but price doesn't matter to an addict.
Programs to keep kids off drugs and treatment programs cost a fraction as much as locking someone up. To that point, we can't even keep drugs out of jail.. How are we supposed to keep them off the street?
I don't want the government telling our kids drugs are good, I just don't think they are doing any good at all criminalizing it.
Ask a kid which he has an easier time of getting, pot or a Budweiser.. I guarantee it's not a Budweiser. You can't think this is working...
Look at the bright side, we spend hundreds of billions of our hard owned dollars on something to make a few think they are doing some good... This doesn't decrease demand at all.. Do you know of anyone who has wanted to do drugs, that didn't because it's illegal?