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.

[tpaine]

"-- Not many people are aware of two of the most important legal concepts in the world. These ideas go all the way back to Roman times and have been the basis for categorizing criminal offenses for centuries, so if you've ever wondered what the legal difference is between driving too fast and killing someone with a chainsaw, read on.

Malum Prohibitum

The literal translation is "wrong because prohibited". Basically, this means something is against the law because someone decided it should be. Think parking in a No Standing Zone or dumping a broken washing machine in the park and you're starting to get an idea of a malam prohibitum crime.
There's nothing inherently immoral in doing something that's prohibited in this way, but we accept the principal that those laws are there because they help society function.

Malum In Se

Meaning "wrong in itself", an act classed as malum in se is universally accepted as Just Plain Wrong. Lying under oath, for instance isn't considered a nice thing to do anywhere in the world because when you say "I promise to tell the truth" you're entering into an agreement that you'll act in a certain way. You're giving something to people that defines who you are in a very real sense and they're give you something in return: you're giving them your word and they're giving you their trust. If that kind of primal "contract" is broken, it can never be put right. That's to say, if you dump a broken washing machine and someone catches you, it's possible to pick the washing machine up and take it away again with no harm done. If you lie to someone, the lie will always be there.

Conflicts arise when people don't agree on each other's definitions of these two types of crimes. --"

[Know your rights]

It's 3AM on a Tuesday morning, nobody on the road but me, a cop sees me crossing the centerline, and I get a ticket.

Where's the "clear" danger? Where's the "present" danger? There is none.

*IF* we could be confident that 3AM drivers always knew with a certainty whether there was anyone else on the road, I'd agree that the law should be changed. We can't, so it shouldn't.

[Supernatural]

"If you lie to someone, the lie will always be there".

Therein lies my chief complaint. The government has been lying all along that marijuana is dangerous and bad.

Some have swallowed this simple, easy to understand lie.

That's why marijuana is illegal. Because of a simple lie.

Mojave and RobertPaulsen have swallowed the simple lie.

[Know your rights]

I think a lot of law enforcement energy that was being used to fight the war on drugs has unfortunately had to be redirected to the war on terror and drug dealers have taken advantage of it.

Can you show that the War On Drugs was any more successful pre-9/11 than post-9/11 ... or are you making up "facts" to support your preconceptions?

[MEGoody]

Now, if he means that the WOD has not stopped drug use 100%, sure. The WOD is a failure. As are our efforts against against everything else from cancer to illiteracy.

Exactly right. I mean, murder is against the law, but murders still happen by the thousands every year.

Maybe we should just legalize murder while we're at it.

[Know your rights]

murder is against the law, but murders still happen by the thousands every year.

Almost two-thirds of murder cases end in an arrest; what fraction of drug sales or use do you think even come to the attention of the authorities?

Maybe we should just legalize murder while we're at it.

Murder violates rights; drug sale and use do not.

[AllGoodMen]

"Can you show that the War On Drugs was any more successful pre-9/11 than post-9/11 ... or are you making up "facts" to support your preconceptions?"

With the massive war on terror effort, it would only seem logical that at least some of the resources that had been used in the war on drugs prior to the 9-11 attacks must have been redirected over to the war on terror wouldn't it?

Like I say, I don't claim to be an expert on the war on drugs or the war on terror. I just know I see still see as many drug-related problems now as what had been going on five years ago.

[Know your rights]

Can you show that the War On Drugs was any more successful pre-9/11 than post-9/11

it would only seem logical

Not everything that "would only seem logical" is true; beliefs should as much as possible be based on fact not supposition.

[Phantom Patriot]

Its morally wrong? So is homosexual sex. So are abortions. All legal, all deadly and dangerous.



We have all been asked by the politico's to be tolerant of these peoples needs yet can't get them to reciprocate.

[Phantom Patriot]

The world is upside-down. People like you made it that way and people like you are keeping it that way.

Crawl back under your rock and leave the rest of us alone.



AAAAAAmen.

[Phantom Patriot]

Bout time for that double.You ready?

[Supernatural]

Its way past time. I've been ready.

I know you're ready too.

Taking puff. Swallowing whiskey. Aaaaahhhh.

Once again.

[chas1776]

Drugs are the American way. Show me a poor area in the country and I will show you some enterprising American trying to make in our society selling drugs. When you can buy something for $2.00 and sell it for $200 you are going to have drugs.

[Supernatural]

I know a guy who says that as long at the people want drugs, someone will be around to sell drugs to them. So you are right on the money.

[robertpaulsen]

"I called it a win, which is what it was.
You sure love putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you?"

No, I was merely clarifying what you called a "win".

[robertpaulsen]

"If it is harmless then there is absolutely no reason to prohibit it."

I didn't say it was harmless. You sure love putting words in peoples' mouths, don't you?

I said it didn't directly kill people.

"Its morally wrong?"

Yes it is.

[robertpaulsen]

As a courtesy to Alex H, you really should cite your source.

[robertpaulsen]

"Almost two-thirds of murder cases end in an arrest; what fraction of drug sales or use do you think even come to the attention of the authorities?"

So you're suggesting that we step up our drug enforcement activities to get to that two-thirds number? Why do you equate murder to drug use?

[Supernatural]

I said it was harmless. You have yet to come up with any real evidence to the contrary in spite of having hundreds, if not thousands of posts on threads like this one. You admitted that it is non-fatal. Non-fatal is harmless. Can't kill you, can't harm you.

Are you the morality police? Move to China or Cuba. I'll bet we could get a lot of people to pitch in for a one-way ticket for you. Don't let the door hit you in your behind on the way out. Adios.

[tpaine]

As a courtesy to FR, you really should admit to your anti-constitutionalist agenda.