Musings About the War on Drugs

The Wall Street Journal ^ | February 21, 2006 | GEORGE MELLOAN

[JTN]

Economist Milton Friedman predicted in Newsweek nearly 34 years ago that Richard Nixon's ambitious "global war against drugs" would be a failure. Much evidence today suggests that he was right. But the war rages on with little mainstream challenge of its basic weapon, prohibition.

To be sure, Mr. Friedman wasn't the only critic. William Buckley's National Review declared a decade ago that the U.S. had "lost" the drug war, bolstering its case with testimony from the likes of Joseph D. McNamara, a former police chief in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif. But today discussion of the war's depressing cost-benefit ratio is being mainly conducted in the blogosphere, where the tone is predominantly libertarian. In the broader polity, support for the great Nixon crusade remains sufficiently strong to discourage effective counterattacks.

In broaching this subject, I offer the usual disclaimer. One beer before dinner is sufficient to my mind-bending needs. I've never sampled any of the no-no stuff and have no desire to do so. So let's proceed to discuss this emotion-laden issue as objectively as possible.

[stuartcr]

Has it been put on a national ballot?

Even if the cartels did focus on different drugs, they would incur large costs...ie new sources, new distributors, new routes, new methods, new customers, etc. I don't believe the same customers would be using heroin, that currently use marijuana or cocaine, and I doubt the people that currently supply marijuana and cocaine, have the ability to supply heroin and amphetamines.

[robertpaulsen]

I can make a much stronger case for the statement that we are winning that he can for "losing", and I'm not the deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal.

[cosine]

It seems to me that most people want social actions against drug users in order to minimize what are certainly destructive behaviors. And there is no doubt that beyond a certain point drug users probably cannot quit without outside intervention. So we first tried a brute force approach, making drug use and trafficking illegal. At the same time we said users were sick and deserved protection from the consequences of their actions--employers, landlords and everyone else were prohibited from to taking certain actions against people they think are using drugs. Treatment programs, most of which do little good unless a user already wants to quit, became the solution du jour.

Before I'll listen to anyone discuss legalization, which has its points including reducing the size of criminal fortunes that destabalize domestic and foreign governments, I want to hear that that person also supports hiring and firing at will, an end of controls on landlords, and the abolition of other laws that prevent decent people from discriminating against drug users (or any other kind of objectionable behavior). Perhaps social disapprobation, with teeth, will raise the costs of indulging in many more ways than mere law enforcement can.

[Eagle Eye]

So let's proceed to discuss this emotion-laden issue as objectively as possible.

Like that is possible here!

Next joke, please?

[robertpaulsen]

"Because elected officials are too chicken-s--t to bring the issue to the floor."

Yeah. They like their job and want to keep it.

"How do you know if the public opposes it if the issue isn't brought up in the first place?"

Polls.

"What dopehead is going to waste their money and risk their life buying illegal drugs when they can save and get the real stuff for far less cheaper at a pharmacy or drugstore?"

Didn't read my response, did you? I said that if drugs A and B are made legal, the cartels will focus on drugs C, D, E, F, and G. They'll also continue to sell drugs A and B to kids. And they'll export drugs A and B to other countries where those drugs remain illegal.

What they will NOT do is get a real job.

[Eagle Eye]

Thanks.

We all feel better now.

[Eagle Eye]

I said that if drugs A and B are made legal, the cartels will focus on drugs C, D, E, F, and G

I don't think you can support your hypothesis.

If there is little or not demand for C,D,E,F, etc, then the cartels can focus all they want, they won't recover.

Decriminalize/legalize pot. Take away the profits there. What reason is there to believe that users would migrate to something they don't use now and is already in existence? None, imo.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Yeah. They like their job and want to keep it.

Yeah, entrenched politicians are too afraid to take a real stand on a critical issue because it's too "controversial" and may cause them to lose their seats thanks to the hypocrites in the MSM and Republicrat party.

Polls.

Gimme a break. The same polls that predict the death of Bush's presidency every week are suddenly credible when it comes to drugs? LOLOL

Didn't read my response, did you? I said that if drugs A and B are made legal, the cartels will focus on drugs C, D, E, F, and G. They'll also continue to sell drugs A and B to kids. And they'll export drugs A and B to other countries where those drugs remain illegal.

Apparently you didn't read my response. What dopehead is going to risk getting shot, or getting robbed, or buying BS quality of drugs from the street dealer when they can easily buy the legal stuff with no hassles? If people aren't buying drugs C, D, E, etc., would the cartels be in business?

(Sam Cooke, Wonderful World lyrics) - "Don't know much about history. Don't know much about biology economic policy."

[robertpaulsen]

"In your opinion, when would the War on Drugs be won? Isn't that the real question?"

When drug use stabilizes at some level for some period of time despite increased government spending, enforcement, and penalties, then I would say the War on Drugs has accomplished all it can. That doesn't mean we "won" or "lost" or even that the WOD is over.

I think we were at that point in the early 90's, prior to state decriminalization and medical marijuana legalization.

We need to recognize that there will always be some level of illegal drug use, just as there is with any other crime. That realistic attitude, however, does not make for a good campaign slogan.

[robertpaulsen]

"I don't believe the same customers would be using heroin, that currently use marijuana or cocaine, and I doubt the people that currently supply marijuana and cocaine, have the ability to supply heroin and amphetamines."

Phew! I was worried about that, and I'm glad to hear it won't happen.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

When drug use stabilizes at some level for some period of time despite increased government spending, enforcement, and penalties, then I would say the War on Drugs has accomplished all it can. That doesn't mean we "won" or "lost" or even that the WOD is over.

So you're saying, in essence, it's a war from which we'll never stand down. Is this correct? That there's no true way to claim a victory?

[mysterio]

So that means we should quit?

No. The fact that SWAT teams of jackbooted thugs are kicking in doors to look for a plant means we should quit. The absolute flushing down the toilet of the Fourth Amendment means we should quit.

It is time to end the fWO(s)D.

[robertpaulsen]

"Has it been put on a national ballot?"

Does it need to be a national ballot, or will local polls be acceptable to make my point?

[stuartcr]

It would be better if you had quoted the whole paragraph.

[stuartcr]

Local polls may make your point, depending on where you live, and who you poll, but they do not represent what a national vote would.

[robertpaulsen]

"Decriminalize/legalize pot. Take away the profits there. What reason is there to believe that users would migrate to something they don't use now and is already in existence? None, imo."

What's the point? What have we accomplished?

Of the $60B in illegal drugs consumed in this country, only $10B is marijuana. The cartels will simply focus on easy to smuggle (and highly profitable) cocaine, heroin and meth. Then what?

10 years from now you'll be posting, "Decriminalize/legalize cocaine. Take away the profits there. What reason is there to believe that users would migrate to something they don't use now and is already in existence?"

[robertpaulsen]

"Yeah, entrenched politicians are too afraid to take a real stand on a critical issue because it's too "controversial"

No. Because their constituents don't want it and would vote them out of office.

"What dopehead is going to risk getting shot, or getting robbed, or buying BS quality of drugs from the street dealer when they can easily buy the legal stuff with no hassles?"

They do it today, don't they? They could buy legal alcohol, but they don't.

You're saying that if marijuana is legal, people won't buy heroin.

[robertpaulsen]

"So you're saying, in essence, it's a war from which we'll never stand down. Is this correct? That there's no true way to claim a victory?"

Is it that important to you that we "claim victory and stand down"? Must we do that? I don't understand your thinking on this.

Is it even feasible to claim victory and stand down? Doing that may cause use to increase.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Must we do that? I don't understand your thinking on this.

Simple: I have a real problem with my government declaring a war against some nebulous enemy with no clear way to measure success, thereby creating a never ending war, or a never-ending crisis, that can be used to justify increased taxation, increased spending, increased powers, etc. If there's no way to articulate "victory" in the War on Drugs, how can we ever win it?

Further, I have a real problem with our government using the rhetoric of war in dealing with this nation's drug problem. By coloring this effort as a war for thirty years, we've allowed it to take on the size, shape, and flavor of an actual war, with war-like tactics and war-like propaganda on both sides, with war-like draconian measures as well. Hell, we've got paramilitary and actual military units fighting the "enemy" in this war---we're using bullets to combat what is essentially a social problem.

[weegee]

Yeah, dopers wouldn't still want LSD, ecstasy, xanex, etc. if they could get pot, heroin, and meth.

Different tokes for different folks. There would still be billions of dollars in drug trade and turf wars.