War on Drugs is producing casualties, but not victories

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH ^ | Sunday, Mar. 12 2006 | By Bill McClellan

[MRMEAN]

This year, the body of 17-year-old Jacob Bowers was found in a parking lot behind a furniture store in Cape Girardeau. He had been shot once in the back. The bullet went through his heart. A small quantity of cocaine was found in one of his pockets. He had also been carrying a two-shot derringer pistol. It was loaded. Both bullets were dented from the gun's hammer. Apparently, the pistol had misfired.

Three days later, Bernard Richards, 19, was arrested and charged with Bowers' murder. The interesting thing about the case was the total absence of virtue.

According to the state, Bowers and John Lewis decided to rob a small-time drug dealer, David McKee. Lewis called McKee and said he wanted to buy some cocaine. As McKee walked to the parking lot where he was supposed to meet Lewis, he happened upon Richards, who told him that he had seen Lewis with a second man, and that made him think that this "deal" was going to turn into a robbery. So Richards, who had a weapon, came along as protection. He hid behind a trash container as McKee met Bowers and Lewis.

Sure enough, it was a robbery. After McKee gave the men the cocaine, Bowers pulled out his derringer and put it to McKee's head. He demanded McKee's money. Which amounted to two bucks, by the way. McKee grabbed Bowers' gun, and the two struggled. During the struggle, Richards came from behind the trash bin, shooting and yelling. McKee, Bowers and Lewis all took off. Richards chased after Bowers and fired again. Bowers went down.

That is the state's theory, anyway.

[Moonman62]

The point is, they sought to rob a drug dealer because drugs are illegal.

Alcohol is legal, yet liquor stores still get robbed. Lots of law-abiding people get robbed all the time. Thugs will be thugs.

[SittinYonder]

the National Firearms Act was not passed until 1934.

LOL ... When did prohibition end? December, 1933. Six months later. Your post was disingenuous at best, deliberately misleading at worst.

So are you claiming that gun control led to the reduction in violence or do you concede that it was the ending of prohibition?

The fact is that homicides in this country dropped dramatically after the end of prohibition and did not start to rise until around 1965 ... the same time that another form of prohibition was beginning to take hold.

[rottndog]

I totally agree with you on this one. WOD is a failure--more drugs are available now than ever before--The profit motive is too great to stop it.

There are too many adverse side effects--most notably to me is the creation of several narco states in central and south America, including Mexico.

The costs are too high and the benefits are too small to continue this idiocy. This qualifies as insane under Einstein's definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result).

BTW--I have never taken any drug not prescribed by a doctor. This is just a simple cost/benefit analysis.

[dr_who_2]

It seems like every other year or so, there's another dangerous illegal substance that the state has to stop. The war on drugs can't be won. There are too many suicidal losers out there with nothing better to do except poison themselves. Why stop them?

[Creationist]

If some one spends their rent money on drugs and the children have to live on the street.
If some one spends their paycheck all on drugs should they get welfare to feed the kids. If some one does spends their money on drugs instead of getting the dog medical attention.

All these are at home possibilities and you probably do not think they are crimes. You would think we should finance their addictions so as to keep them from hurting anyone outside their circle.

[Creationist]

We should legalize everything, rape, murder, insest, drugs,hate crimes, etc, then there would not be violence because they all would be legal and no one would be breaking any moral laws.

[SittinYonder]

None of that happens now thanks to the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is working so well and solving all of society's drug-related problems.

It's moronic to continue doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I'm not saying legalizing drugs is the only way. I've also proposed that we impose the death penalty for possession of illicit drugs.

you probably do not think they are crimes

Don't try to tell me what I think. You'll likely be wrong and only succeed in weakening your position by attempting to belittle me personally rather than arguing in favor of your points.

[SittinYonder]

You and your strawmen ... Where did eyespysomething recommend legalizing insest (sic)?

And what's with the "hate crimes"? I thought every Freeper was already in favor of legalizing hate crimes.

[KurtZ]

"BTW--I have never taken any drug not prescribed by a doctor. This is just a simple cost/benefit analysis."

Really? Not even an aspirin? A sip of beer? Even the caffeine in a cup of coffee can alter your mood. We are all "drug" users, some are just more socially acceptable than others.

(Disclaimer: I do not condone the use of drugs for recreational purposes. This message is a preemptive strike against being called a liberal hippie for my conservative leaning libertarian views.)

[SittinYonder]

We are all "drug" users

You liberal hippie!

[LuxMaker]

To all those arguing for legalization of these drugs I suggest that you look at a little thing called the Constitution of the U.S.

Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Legalizing drugs will NOT insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, or secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
As such legalizing drugs is UNconstitutional.
I always say that, "Wanna be a slave? Do drugs."
Drugs is another form of slavery and is anti-liberty.

Now on a caveat to the above note, I also believe that you ultimately can not protect people from themselves. Yes, I agree that if someone is bent on doing drugs the government can not stop them in the long run.

Now with this knowledge in view of the constitution it is the government's responsibility to try and protect people from other people. I personally call for massive segregation between drug users and non-drug users. Give the druggies a state to call their own, but hand out life in prison or death sentences in the other forty-nine. This other state could easily turn out to be an escape from New York kind of place but I am all for it.

As far as apprehension and interdiction, we have the technology to isolate these druggies. There are different forms of spectroscopy that could be employed that can narrow down very quickly the location of the drugs and what their composition is. This could also help in the war on terror as a side note.

[SittinYonder]

When they wrote the Constitution, drugs were not illegal. Furthermore, how is this Constitutional:

Give the druggies a state to call their own, but hand out life in prison or death sentences in the other forty-nine. This other state could easily turn out to be an escape from New York kind of place but I am all for it.

So much for state's rights, huh?

Legalizing drugs will NOT insure domestic tranquility ...

And this is simply your opinion, and your opinion is not supported by facts or history.

[supercat]

To all those arguing for legalization of these drugs I suggest that you look at a little thing called the Constitution of the U.S.

My copy of the Constitution talks about commerce among the states. Some judges seem to use a different form of English than I'm used to, but I was taught that if an action occurs "among" several things, it is not contained within a single one of them.

I recognize that some people seem to have a copy of the Constitution that says "The edicts of the Supreme Court of the United States shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, anything in the Constitution or Laws of the United States or the several states notwithstanding", but mine doesn't say that. For some reason, my copy of the Constitution doesn't seem to fit with many aspects of Prohibition II.

[LuxMaker]

State's will still have a certain degree of autonomy so this will not erode state's rights. States as of now have to fall under federal law which prohibits certain substances for recreational consumption. So this argument is moot.


Quote from http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html
[Quote]
Amsterdam, where access to drugs is relatively unproblematic, is among the most violent and squalid cities in Europe. The idea behind crime—of getting rich, or at least richer, quickly and without much effort—is unlikely to disappear once drugs are freely available to all who want them. And it may be that officially sanctioned antisocial behavior—the official lifting of taboos—breeds yet more antisocial behavior, as the “broken windows” theory would suggest.
[/Quote]

So it is proven that legalizing drugs will NOT insure domestic tranquility as other countries have tried the experiment and FAILED. This is not opinion but fact.

[LuxMaker]

Both federal, state, judiciary, legislative, have all been guilty of promoting unconstitutional things. This does not make it right.

Yes the constitution talks about other things. If law or legislation passes the constitutional litmus test then I should be 99.9% for it.

Now by what mindless reasoning does your copy of the Constitution not fit with aspects of Prohibition II? If you are going to say these things you need some facts to back this up. Please don't just spout off nonsense. It's like someone saying for some reason my meaning of this particular word is different from the meaning that you understand it to be, but I am not going to let you know what it is.

[SittinYonder]

Theodore Dalrymple's opinions are not proven fact, and Amsterdam isn't America. America has a very different culture than Amsterdam, and the effects of something there do not predict the effects of the thing here.

You're suggesting that the federal government require a single state to serve as a prison for drug users. That pretty well fits the definition of "erode state's rights."

If you want to take the point of view that drug possession should be an offense punishable by death, I'll get behind that. But proposing that a state serve as a prison a la Kurt Russell is not practical policy and offers no solution to the problem.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[LuxMaker]

So it is not proven fact that "Amsterdam, where access to drugs is relatively unproblematic, is among the most violent and squalid cities in Europe"?

Or if you agree that it is proven but you say it won't happen in America because we are different? I think you are deluding yourself. It will happen here if we do. The reason the violence has increased so much as it is, is because of our lukewarm response to the problem. The war on drugs currently is a losing proposition because of our lack of resolve and our unwillingness to win it. It is similar to the old war in Vietnam where money and politics were factors that led to U.S. failure in our involvement over there.

There are a lot of innocent victims in the war on drugs that are collateral damage. I would like to see an end to this. Children growing up in dealer families that are in very poor condition. Meth labs blowing up injuring or killing those in the area. Something needs to be seriously done.

I am not for drug possession being punishable by death, but I am for drug manufacture/distribution being punishable by death. The burden of proof should be very high though in such cases, but not too high that no one can be convicted. Drug possession being punishable by death can lead to some VERY bad scenarios where people can be set up for failure so in a way I am not suprised that you would be behind it.

I think one state needs to legalize drugs exercising their autonomy. Then when people get convicted of possession or use they can go to that state rather than clogging up the prison system. Do you have any idea how much it costs to house these people in prison? I think it would be much cheaper and beneficial to those who don't use recreationally to have this option and means to segregate them. Now I did not say send all the criminals there, but I did say I wouldn't be unhappy if it turned into something like escape from New York. This would be because of the nature of the people residing there if it came to this. How is this eroding their rights if they legalized it to begin with? It's not.
I am finding solutions to problems that are for the people, by the people, and of the people. It seems what you suggest is contrary to this line of thought, but correct me if I am wrong.

[Smokin' Joe]

Look at the graph, and you will see that murder was on the rise long before prohibition. I guess that can't be blamed on that.

There may be a correlation between the rise in murder rates and drug 'popularity' in the 1965 onward range, but do the statistics imply that drug prohibition is the cause?

Correlation is not causation.

A lot was going on in that period, from civil unrest, race riots, the Weathermen, the SDS, Black Panthers, and a host of other allegedly violent groups who may have contributed somewhat.

Television went from 'Ozzie and Harriet' to The Osbornes and MTV. In retrospect, I cannot say that was a positive change. More people get wasted in a night's trailers on the tube now than used to die in a week, not counting the occasional war movie. Our cultural attitude toward death has become so callous we make sideshow of starving a disabled woman in Florida--and cannot stop it...

In addition, we had a sea change in the attitude toward prisons and punishment, the death penalty was on the ropes in many jurisdictions. The gun control act of '68, political asasinations--unparalleled until the Clinton Era, although likely done by outsiders-- (JFK, RFK, MLK, bad era to have a last name beginning with 'K', heck, even MJK--ask Teddy)

Hanging, the Gas Chamber, the Electric Chair, were on their way out. People were 'getting off' on technicalities like never before.

Social trends get some of the blame here. You think that there will not be turf wars if drugs are legalized? Hell, ther have been turf wars over garbage removal, something not just legal, but necessary. Try being an independant trucker driving through the Teamster's picket lines in the 1970s...there will always be something valuable enough for some to decide it is worth killing someone else to take it away.

Face it, at the bottom of it all, it is about money. People get killed over money all the time, be it in a convenience store holdup or getting dead somewhere near Fort Marcy Park. While legalizing drugs might make that emphasis shift to something else, the killing will not go away. In the meantime, the deterrent effect the drug laws have will go away.

Ever had a tweeker get in your face all froggy and ready to go? You have to talk them down, or put them down--fast and hard. And no, I am not a LEO.

I have seen the damage meth can do to a person and their family--(HINT: it isn't just the person taking this stuff, but everyone around them who is affected)

Legalizing Meth is going to reduce violence? I seriously doubt it.

How about Angel Dust? (PCP). Another lovely. That world isn't all frat boy bong hits, and pulling back the veil reveals a scene that is far more often ugly than not.

Consider carefully what you advocate, because it may well come back to haunt you.

Now, that said, I am against the infringement of the Second Amendment, from the NFA of '34 onward. I am against the general destruction of the fourth, fifth, and 14th amendments which has taken place under the WOD.

I am all for fighting the war, but by the rules the founders laid out, not at the expense of the rights of the law abiding.

[jocon307]

"...they sought to rob a drug dealer because drugs are illegal. If drugs were legal, this scenario wouldn't have happened."

That's just not necessarily true, people seek to rob liquor stores, and all kinds of stores, all the time.