Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Defense of the Drug War
Human Events ^ | January.25, 2007 | John Hawkins

Posted on 01/29/2007 8:24:15 AM PST by Reagan Man

Libertarians often attack the war on drugs as a waste of tax dollars and an infringement on personal liberties. That is misguided thinking that comes from trying to apply unworkable theoretical concepts in the real world.

For example, you often hear advocates of drug legalization say that we're never going to win the war on drugs and that it would free up space in our prisons if we simply legalized drugs. 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.

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." When it comes to cigarettes, adult smokers "die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers." But, will we ever get rid of tobacco or alcohol? No, both products are too societally accepted for that and perhaps more importantly, the government makes enormous amounts of revenue from their sale. Do we really want to be sitting around 10 or 15 years from now saying, "Gee, we'd like to get rid of heroin, but how could we replace the revenue we make from taxing it at an exorbitant rate?"

Of course, the number of people using what are currently illegal drugs would skyrocket if they were legalized, so we'd see a new wave of drug-addled burglars if we "legalized it." Now, maybe you think that's not the case. Some people certainly argue that if illicit drugs were legalized, their usage would drop. However, the fact that drugs are illegal is certainly holding down their usage. Just look at what happened during prohibition. Per Ann Coulter in her book, "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)":

"Prohibition resulted in startling reductions in alcohol consumption (over 50 percent), cirrhosis of the liver (63 percent), admissions to mental health clinics for alcohol psychosis (60 percent), and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct (50 percent)." -- p.311

That's what happened when alcohol was made illegal. However, on the other hand, if we make drugs legal, safer, easier to obtain, more societally accepted, and some people say even cheaper as well, there would almost have to be an enormous spike in usage.

Certainly that's what happened in the Netherlands where "consumption of marijuana...nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds" after the drug was legalized.

But, some people may say, "so what if drug usage does explode? They're not hurting anyone but themselves." That might be true in a purely capitalistic society, but in the sort of welfare state that we have in this country, the rest of us would end up paying a significant share of the bills of people who don't hold jobs or end up strung out in the hospital without jobs -- 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. Even setting that aside, we make laws that prevent people from harming themselves all the time in our society. In many states there are helmet laws, laws that require us to wear seatbelts, laws against prostitution, and it's even illegal to commit suicide. So banning harmful drugs is just par for the course.

And make no mistake about it, drugs do wreck a lot of lives. Of course, drugs aren't the only things that wreck lives and not every person who does drugs ends up as a crackhead burglar or a dirty bum living in an alley. Heck, Barack Obama, a man some people would like to see as our next President has used cocaine -- and doesn't it seem like every few weeks we read about another celebrity who comes out of rehab and goes on to have a successful career?

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.

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."

Bennett was right then, he's right now, and my guess is that most parents, upon finding out that someone was peddling drugs to their kid, would agree with him. Since that's the case, do we really want the federal government to take over the role of a pusher and get our kids hooked on drugs to make a profit? No, we don't.

[Mr. Hawkins runs Right Wing News, a conservative blog. He writes a weekly column for Human Events Online. You can also e-mail him at johnhawkins -at- rightwingnews.com]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: rmthread; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-375 next last

1 posted on 01/29/2007 8:24:16 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

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

Yep.


2 posted on 01/29/2007 8:27:46 AM PST by Bones75
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

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.


3 posted on 01/29/2007 8:28:35 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Good Stats

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


4 posted on 01/29/2007 8:30:48 AM PST by april15Bendovr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

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.


5 posted on 01/29/2007 8:31:25 AM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bones75; jmc813; Wolfie

"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.


6 posted on 01/29/2007 8:31:26 AM PST by vin-one (REMEMBER the WTC !!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
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.

7 posted on 01/29/2007 8:31:34 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: highball

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....


9 posted on 01/29/2007 8:32:55 AM PST by Bones75
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
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.

10 posted on 01/29/2007 8:33:05 AM PST by gdani (Save the cheerleader, save the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
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).
11 posted on 01/29/2007 8:33:13 AM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Ironic words, coming from a chain smoker.

And inveterate gambler.

12 posted on 01/29/2007 8:37:05 AM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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

Practice with caffeine.


13 posted on 01/29/2007 8:37:35 AM PST by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
And inveterate gambler

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

14 posted on 01/29/2007 8:38:52 AM PST by gdani (Save the cheerleader, save the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
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.
15 posted on 01/29/2007 8:38:57 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
"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.

16 posted on 01/29/2007 8:40:14 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Voted Free Republic's Most Eligible Bachelor: 2006. Love them Diebold machines.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

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.


17 posted on 01/29/2007 8:40:19 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
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.
18 posted on 01/29/2007 8:40:56 AM PST by JamesP81 (Eph 6:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
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.
19 posted on 01/29/2007 8:43:15 AM PST by JamesP81 (Eph 6:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highball
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.

20 posted on 01/29/2007 8:44:29 AM PST by Freedom_no_exceptions (No actual, intended, or imminent victim = no crime. No exceptions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 361-375 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson