In Defense of the Drug War

Human Events ^ | January.25, 2007 | John Hawkins

[Bones75]

"Libertarians often attack the war on drugs as a waste of tax dollars and an infringement on personal liberties."

Yep.

[highball]

First time I've ever heard freedom described as an "unworkable theoretical concept."

At least the big government "conservatives" are getting more honest, I guess.

[april15Bendovr]

Good Stats

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/MJ.htm#Substate

[proxy_user]

This debate is not really about straight legalization vs. exactly what we're doing now.

Since what we're doing is not working very well, we should try to find something that works better. How can we stop drug use without violating everyone's rights and shredding the Constitution?

For example, we could decriminalize marijuana without legalizing it, while using the resources saved to crack down harder on other drugs.

[vin-one]

"nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds" after the drug was legalized"

Those numbers that you quote as tripling are only a result of people not being afraid to report that they smoke MJ.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

While it's true that we may not ever win the war against drugs -- i.e. never entirely eradicate the use of illegal drugs -- we're not ever going to win the war against murder, robbery and rape either. But our moral code rejects each of them, so none -- including drugs -- can be legalized if we still adhere to that code.

What a bunch of rubbish. The author of this piece would've failed FR WoD Threads 101.

[Bones75]

Agreed.

I like this part:

"Sure, that's true. But, every person who plays Russian Roulette doesn't end up with a bullet in his head either. Look at the flip side of the equation. How many homeless people are drug addicts? How many women have had crack babies? How many people are in jail today because they got high and committed a crime? How many lives have been wrecked in some form or fashion by drug use? There's probably not a person reading this column who doesn't know someone who has faced terrible consequences in his life because of drug use. "

You'd think by reading that we'd need a 'war on drugs' of some sort.. or something.....you know, with billions of dollars in expenditures and decimation of personal freedom to fix the problems described..... oh .. wait....

[gdani]

That's why once, way back when William Bennett was the drug czar, he responded like so to a caller on the Larry King show who told him that he should "behead the damn drug dealers."

"I mean what the caller suggests is morally plausible," he said. "Legally, it's difficult. But somebody selling drugs to a kid? Morally, I don't have any problem with that at all."

Ironic words, coming from a chain smoker.

[kinoxi]

If we legalized drugs, we'd be able to tax them and bring in more revenue for the state. But, how is that working out with alcohol and cigarettes? In 2004 and 2005, 39% of all traffic-related deaths was related to alcohol consumption and 36% of convicted offenders "had been drinking alcohol when they committed their conviction offense."

The author, according to his own logic, should be calling for an immediate war on alcohol and cigarettes (alcohol and cigarette users).

[Trailerpark Badass]

Ironic words, coming from a chain smoker.

And inveterate gambler.

[I see my hands]

"How can we stop drug use without violating everyone's rights and shredding the Constitution"

Practice with caffeine.

[gdani]

And inveterate gambler

Yup. When he wrote his Vices book he apparently had plenty of personal experience to draw from.

[mysterio]

There is no defense of the failed war on some drugs. It is a pointless waste of liberty and resources.

How many died last year from crime surrounding the trafficking of alcohol?

How many died last year from crime surrounding the trafficking of tobacco?

How many died last year from crime surrounding the trafficking of cocaine?

Think about it.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Since what we're doing is not working very well, we should try to find something that works better. How can we stop drug use without violating everyone's rights and shredding the Constitution?"

This applies to so many areas...but in so many ways we try to put the cart in front of the horse...we spin our wheels debating the right of the government to "legislate morality," when in fact, we should be concerned about legislation against teaching morality. There were alcoholics raising hell, before during and after prohibition; however, there was a time when they were shunned, excoriated, and marginalized by society in general, without laws. A free republic and capitalist economy depend on the virtue of their citizenry to police themselves. When people lose the moral ability to discriminate and exercise personal judgement, they not only allow, but come to expect, government to take over their functions for them...bad, counterproductive laws get passed in the name of doing good.

[ctdonath2]

With only a few small edits, and retaining all the same facts, the article would be equally persuasive for the opposite side. That "If X, then Y" is just as persuasive as "If !X, then Y" does not bode well for the reasoning.

He addresses Prohibition with "but this is different", using exactly the same rhetoric that Prohibitionists used.

Lesson: it didn't work before, it's not working again.

[JamesP81]

and that's even if you forget about the thugs who'd end up robbing our houses to get things to pawn to buy more drugs.

They already do that.

[JamesP81]

As a Christian, I abhor the use of drugs. However, our laws are supposed to ensure that a person's rights are not infringed by another party. Period. The ever more forcefully prosecuted drug war is eroding civil rights and results in things like military equipped police units breaking into houses and shooting 80 year old grannies. Frankly, the situation of eroding rights is far more dangerous than some guy who sits in his living room smoking crack. In fact, some guy smoking dope is totally unimportant next to the infringement of rights. It's not even on the radar.

I'm no longer convinced that the drug war serves society well anymore.

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

First time I've ever heard freedom described as an "unworkable theoretical concept."

Unfortunately, not the first time I've heard that. Not by a longshot. And the next paragraph...once again...compares drug use to murder and rape. That automatically disqualifies the author from the debate.