Rethinking The Drug War (John Stossel Hits Home Run In Argument Against Futile WOD Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 03/29/06 | John Stossel

[tonycavanagh]

re :Anybody who would steal to get mind- and body-destroying drugs, and anybody who would buy a gun and form a gang to sell them, is either evil or stupid. Chances are they'd end up criminals anyway.

But not all people do, there is a growing number of people who hold down jobs and take drugs on the weekend as a form of recreation.

[liberty2004]

Better to fight the good fight and lose than to passively acquiesce. That would be such a European thing to do

the better fight is to restore respect for individual rights and Liberty. The drug war itself fits the European way. The way of putting the state above the individual. The drug war is corrosive to our liberties. Humans are moral beings and I believe if left alone, most would make the proper choice. You seem to think that everyone would become drug crazed zombies if all drugs were legalized. I have faith that would not be the case.

[liberty2004]

Are there actually people who shoot up heroin and do not end up addicted?

many of our Warriors in Vietnam did heroin. When they returned and aged a little past 30, most got sense and stopped.

[Carry_Okie]

They don't have a problem in Singapore. Guess why?

They don't have a constitution that protects individual liberty?

Fascinating, you decided to blow off the larger half of the post because you can't attack it, amply demonstrating the lack of integrity in your blanket accusation.

Given that we used to enforce similar drug laws in this country when the Constitution was in far better shape, you don't have a case.

[Carry_Okie]

You would have to lock up 1/4 the country to make any difference.

This holds about as much water as the, "you can't deport 15 million illegals" gambit.

You don't have to. You start prosecuting and people will quit.

[RHINO369]

"You don't have to. You start prosecuting and people will quit."

The percent of American in the prison system has doubled since 1985. Drug use hasn't stopped. Do you think its right to throw a person in jail for the better part of their life for a truly victimless crime? Is your moral high ground worth all the children who die in gang cross fire? The war on drugs is destroying personal freedom. I'd rather have 5% of our population killing themselves with drugs, than in prison.

[seacapn]

Singapore has the advantage of being a tiny city-state with one airport, a small, secure border with Malaysia, and a well-regulated port. Combine that with broad police powers, and that is today's Singapore.

[decal]

If you'd rather live in a police state with a supposedly suppressed drug culture than in an America with a supposed drug problem, there's really nothing we can do for you, and I don't propose to try.

[liberty2004]

You don't have to. You start prosecuting and people will quit.,

I wish they would try this to prove you wrong. I have friends and family in Law enforcement. None I know take the drug war seriously. They know it is a game. I can't believe anyone seriously can believe this idiotic war can be won. Did we not learn from alcohol prohibition? Humans have faults and it isn't the end of the world if someone smokes pot. A bigger problem to me is the fact that governments take over 50% of our income and abuse us with the bureaucrats. The drug war is stupid and WILL NEVER BE WON no matter what we try. Think about it. IF they can't keep drugs out of maximum security prisons, do you honestly think they can keep them out the general society? Don't be so hung up on this drug war... sheesh, I need a drink :)

[DuckFan4ever]

Stossel is wrong on this issue. People who are intent on destroying themselves need to be locked up. Treatment only for those who want it and show a commitment to it. We aren't responsible for making sure everyone makes the right choices in life, but we are responsible for removing those people from civilized society. The public health problems created by "recreational" users is incredibly damaging.

[decal]

"I wish they would try this to prove you wrong."

U. S. Grant once said something to the effect that, if you want to get rid of a stupid law, enforce it stringently.

[calex59]

Yes, it can, but evidently not dramatically enough or quickly enough for the notorious short-commitment span of the American people. For example, drug courts established in my home state and elsewhere are achieving remarkable results in terms of both recovery and in the reduction of criminal recidivism.

I call BS. Not quickly enough? They have been fighting this so called WOD since I was young, I am well over 60 now. We not only haven't won,and are not winning now, we have taken relatively benign street gangs who had little money and crummy little weapons such as zip guns and chains and have helped them gain financial independence(the same way gangs did duriong prohibition), and who are now about as well armed as they can get because they have the money to do so. Money that they obtained by selling and running illegal drugs.

As long as drugs are illegal we will have them in this country, the demand makes it so, and as long as they are illegal we will have street gangs killing, robbing and generally causing violence in order to maintain the wealth they have now. It was true with booze and it is true with drugs.

Legalize, we will still have drugs but we won't have the crime that goes with the illegal selling of them.

Rum runners are virtually gone from this country because of the legalizing of booze by the lifting of prohibition. Anyone who can't see the problem would be solved by legalizing drugs is an idiot and if you fall into the category they you are truely blind to the ways of the world and are more interested in forcing your version of morality onto people than you are with stopping the crime involved in the WOD.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

I have never understood the WOD. (And let me state that I have NEVER used illegal drugs of any kind.) Who cares if people use? Not me. If they use and then drive under the influence, arrest them for that. If they use and then commit crimes while high, arrest them for that -- and cut them no slack at all, since they chose to use. If they use and it tears up their families, well, what is different about that from people who are alcoholics and tear up their families, or those who are just plain jerks and do the same?

The way to dramatically cut drug use is not to forbid it, but to make it unfashionable. Tobacco use is WAY down, largely because of a public opinion campaign. Once it was sexy to light a cigarette. Now people just think of secondhand cancer. But drugs still have a cachet, since they are the forbidden fruit. Make drug use boring by decriminalizing it and making it available cheaply, and portray people who use them as losers and idiots, and the drug problem will be way down too, just like tobacco use.

[RHINO369]

"Stossel is wrong on this issue. People who are intent on destroying themselves need to be locked up."

What gives you the right to choose for them. Having government control your life is what liberals want.

[liberty2004]

Anyone who can't see the problem would be solved by legalizing drugs is an idiot and if you fall into the category they you are truely blind to the ways of the world and are more interested in forcing your version of morality onto people than you are with stopping the crime involved in the WOD.

thanks, you made many good points!

[bigfootbob]

When were they ever more draconian in America on drug laws than now, Carry? Pre-1932 or so there weren't any drug laws. Coke, heroin and morphine were all sold over the counter, in elixir's and a famous bottled beverage.

[liberty2004]

But drugs still have a cachet, since they are the forbidden fruit. Make drug use boring by decriminalizing it and making it available cheaply, and portray people who use them as losers and idiots, and the drug problem will be way down too, just like tobacco use.

Excellent point. This is indeed what would happen. Imagine how much more civil and peaceful our cities would be if this insane WOD ended. It's a shame to waste human treasure on such a futile effort.

[Carry_Okie]

To think they drug use would skyrocket because they are legal is false.

Bull pucky. Go look at Amsterdam.

Please go back and read some of Friedman's and other great thinkers. Some day the War on Drugs will be ended and years after, people will wonder why we wasted our time.

Yawn. I've read plenty of Friedman, and sent his kid into loops to boot (in a debate over competing private currencies).

I'm sick and tired of shallow "libertarian" arguments in favor of legalization, simply because there is no personal accountability in their proposals. So chew on this for a bit, and you'd best understand it and take it in context, else I won't bother to respond:

Tolerance for illegal drugs has been a central issue dividing social conservatives and civil libertarians. The libertarians are correct that the spectacular failure of the War on Drugs has weakened Constitutional protections of fundamental civil liberties.

The libertarian claim is that drug use is a victimless crime, no worse than the legal consumption of alcohol. That both are important factors in birth defects, transmission of infectious diseases, broken families, accidental pregnancies, children without support, traffic accidents, and violent crime renders the claim that either drug or alcohol abuse is "victimless" totally bogus.

It is unreasonable to expect people under the influence of increasingly powerful drugs to be capable of containing the damage they might do. So, without supplying users a motive to make absolutely certain that they cannot harm others while using a mind-altering chemical substance, there will never be a successful means of managing the consequences. Absent sufficient penalty for failure to contain destructive behavior, no legal motive can compel responsible behavior.

What's it going to take? Some people are willing to risk death for a good rush.

There's one place in the industrialized world that has contained their drug problem: Singapore, which visits extreme penalties for all recreational drug use that are enforced swiftly and uniformly. So, as a thought experiment, let's say that drugs were totally legalized in America with the following provision: Users would be subject to a similarly stiff penalty if their actions inflicted harm on other people while they were intoxicated; such as causing a traffic accident, domestic violence, transmission of a communicable disease, etc. Let's say it's death with no appeals.

So, if the advocates of drug legalization are not willing to sign onto heavy penalties for the consequences of irresponsible drug use, isn't the argument, that decriminalizing the substance will not cause serious public health and safety problems, at least suspect? Similarly, if alcohol users are not similarly willing to accept the same penalties as with drugs for the consequences of alcohol intoxication aren't they being hypocritical for advocating keeping drugs illegal?

Both arguments are made by people who want access to the substance of their choice and to avoid accountability for the consequences to other people. So are we stuck with what we are doing now?

The simple fact is that even if it was within the physical power of the United States to stop the importation of illegal drugs, it won't stop domestic illegal drug production any more than it stopped moonshiners and speakeasies during prohibition. Meanwhile, there are solid reasons for concern that effective domestic drug enforcement would do serious damage to civil liberties.

The point of this discussion is not to decide what should be legal or not. It is to show that the choice to enforce the law is not optional. The selective or non-enforcement (what we have now), perpetuates the problems that create the call for solutions that threaten those liberties. So with respect to illegal drugs we have only this hard choice: enforce extremely harsh penalties for all illegal drug use, or decriminalize drug use with extreme penalties for crimes committed under the influence of any substance, with one additional key provision.

Even if we did decriminalize all use of mind altering substances, once users have become intoxicated they can no longer be relied upon to prevent the damage they might do to others while under the influence. Here is where the peculiar transaction for a mind-altering substance bears unique distinctions that provide us the opportunity to address this issue creatively.

Consumption of a mind-altering substance only serves as a vehicle for an experience. The drug functions as a vehicle for entertainment. If a drug producer could sell a means to induce a high without manufacturing or selling a substance, would users purchase the product? Sure, because the product is the high, an experience that often includes the loss of judgment. The producer of that product has thus become a party to the change in the decision-making faculties of the customer and a potential accessory to any crimes committed while intoxicated.

An obvious consequence of that idea is the significant liability inherited by the drug producer or seller that varies greatly with the manner in which judgment is altered or impaired. Makers of stimulants might not be as affected as if they made hallucinogens. The scope and extent of the risk depends upon the product, dosage, and user response. The risk associated with impairment also varies by the circumstances the user encounters. It's complex, too complex for a bureaucracy to manage, almost too complex for a market to operate unless there is a way to keep a cheaters from undercutting their responsible competition.

One problem with incorporating risk into the product under legalization is that the cost of risk in an open sale vastly outweighs the production cost of the drug. For example, a dose of LSD can cost but a $1 to produce and can be made in a good high-school chemistry lab, but the risk of harm in a single dose to or by the user via an auto accident or other crime is substantially more.

All of these factors point to the same conclusion: without rigorously enforced and extreme penalties for crimes committed under the influence with at least civil liability on the part of the seller, there is no hope that sellers and users won't produce and distribute drugs on a black market. If however, the user buys the drug from a vendor with sufficient insurance and perhaps facilities that keep the user from doing too much damage, the possibility of the consequent crimes has been greatly reduced. So, if drugs were to be legalized under this scenario, the only way someone would sell them without risking life in prison or worse, is if they took responsibility for the actions of an intoxicated user by whatever means.

That in itself is a hard political sell even if the billions we are spending now on drug enforcement and the profits now financing organized crime are sufficient to cover the cost of risk. Legalized in such a manner, the price of some drugs might be cheaper than they are on the black market now and people with drug problems could be identified and helped.

If the public is unwilling to inflict such punishments, then there is no way to legalize recreational drugs and the only way to control a drug problem is to do what Singapore has done, similar to what the United States used to do before we had a major drug problem. Either way, we cannot solve this problem by failing to enforce bad law.

It's either re-institute draconian punishments, or tolerate what we have now, or worse.

[Carry_Okie]

When were they ever more draconian in America on drug laws than now, Carry?

Prior to the 1960s. IIRC they were changed in about 1969 or 70.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "After all if we are going to look after in fact assume responsibility for others because they are too weak to assume responsibility for there own actions, or hand that responsibility over to the government why stop at just prostitution, gambling and drugs."

Your counterargument is based upon a straw man fallacy. I did not say that the role of government is to micromanage the moral choices of its people. I do argue, however, that a society that either passively abets or actively promotes behaviors that lead to the weakening of that society are ultimately (and self-evidently) destructive of that society. Those encouraged attributes collectively known as character--solid work ethic, honesty, sobriety, integrity, reliability--commonly and historically recognized as building blocks of a prosperous, healthy community or nation-state are devalued and undercut by public policies that legalize and culturally affirm their opposite. An individual making bad life choices is one thing; a polity that encourages the making of such choices is entirely another.

And lastly, about that 'I know many socialists who say the same thing' remark. It was a cheap shot, a smear by association. The context of my remarks established precisely what I meant by moral clarity. But I gather you're a libertarian, aren't you? Libertarians pride themselves as a hard-headed, pragmatic, utilitarian crowd, steering clear of arguments containing anything remotely hinting of intangibles like 'virtue' or 'morality'. Tell you what, if any libertarian anywhere actually wins election to something other than dog catcher, I might be persuaded to take your stance seriously.