This War is Not the Answer

Townhall.com ^ | February 27, 2009 | Burt Prelutsky

[Kaslin]

I believe it is long past time to end the War on Drugs. That’s not because I approve of drug use or have any desire to encourage it. But this particular war has already gone on longer than the ones in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, put together, with no end in sight and far less to show for it.

I would not only decriminalize drug use, I would give it the same legal status as tobacco and alcohol, and with the same age restrictions. For one thing, this would provide a great source of new tax revenue. Also, it would free up jail space for non-drug related crimes.

With the legalization of drugs, the profits that currently accrue to dealers, who use a portion of their ill-gotten gains to pay off politicians, judges and corrupt cops, could go to American companies and American workers.

In Mexico, the majority of murders and kidnappings can be traced directly to the illegal drug trade. Here in the U.S., just in the past two years, over 700 drug-related kidnappings-for-ransom have taken place in Phoenix, Arizona, and those are just the ones we know about. That city can now boast that in addition to all that sunshine and all those golf courses, it is the number one drug gateway to America.

In spite of what the bleeding heart liberals would claim, it’s not poverty, but greed, that has turned most of our big cities into shooting galleries where innocent bystanders seemingly get plunked more often than the punks battling over drug turf.

I realize that among those people opposed to my suggestion are those who’d see it as the government’s endorsing drug use. Considering all the rotten stuff the government has been up to, ranging from the confiscation of private property to the redistribution of wealth, I don’t think many people look to the government for their moral guidance. I would suggest that such people are not only naïve, but dangerously shortsighted. First of all, the War on Drugs has been going on for decades, and the good guys aren’t winning. I wish we were, but that’s simply not the case. Prohibition didn’t work in the 1920s and it’s not working any better today. And as was the case 80 years ago, it only works to the advantage of the criminal class to keep the price of the product so much higher than it would be if the drugs were made legal.

One of the most irksome aspects of the War is that we Americans are always claiming the moral high ground, righteously condemning the poppy growers in Afghanistan, the drug czars in Colombia and the Mexican cut-throats, as if they all conspired to turn us into a nation of junkies. The fact is, if so many of us weren’t infantile hedonists who can’t even go 24 hours without snorting, shooting or smoking, this crap, the Afghanis would start planting potatoes and the Latino criminals would have to find another way to make a living.

Besides, when millions of us go through as much booze, nicotine and Prozac, as we do, we’re hardly in a position to be casting stones at someone else’s habit.

Furthermore, without the high cost that goes with the stuff being contraband, there wouldn’t be such a major campaign to hook school children. Actually, if the drugs were as legal as soda pop, a good deal of their present allure would evaporate. And not just for the kids, but for most of the overpaid louts in Hollywood and on Wall Street.

If drugs were legalized, we could all finally stop pretending that addiction is an illness, and that those who commit crimes while under the influence are automatically entitled to a Get Out of Jail Free card. Using drugs in the first place is a choice, not an imperative. By this late date, even 10-year-olds know that the damn things are addictive.

I would think that rational people, whatever their political affiliation, could agree that legalizing drugs would be beneficial. After all, Libertarians don’t think it’s anybody’s business -- let alone the government’s -- what people elect to do to themselves. Conservatives, who already believe in smaller government and individual responsibility, should also be delighted by the additional tax burden that would be carried almost exclusively by liberals.

[Little Ray]

No, but there ARE non-violent offenders in jail solely for possession/distribution violations. They don't need to be taking up jail space.

[IrishCatholic]

No, not wrong.
Municipal courts would bankrupt a city if it cost 30-40 K for each drug incarceration. So on the face of it it makes no more sense than claiming shoplifting costs 30-40 K per prosecution.

Don’t confuse Prohibition with the Volstead Act.

Doesn’t matter anyway. I agreed to legalize everything if you agree not to charge the system for medical costs and allow cops civil immunity from the spike in dealing with people under the influence. So what’s the problem? I am agreeing with you.

Smoke away.

[R. Scott]

Yep. Out of control.
Prohibition didn’t work 80 years ago, and it won’t work now. I’ve had personal experience with those people.

[Ken H]

Anything that wouldn't grow the size of government--and basically, that's what I think this would do--would be perfectly okay. But this does the exact opposite of what it's intended to do.

You seem to be saying that regulating a legal marijuana market would involve more government enforcement than enforcing a prohibition. Given all the time and resources devoted by the criminal justice system to marijuana offenders, and the undercover investigations and so forth, I find such a claim not at all credible.

If that is your claim, can you provide some facts and figures to back it?

[spacewarp]

You still missed the point. I didn’t say the cost of prosecution. It is the cost of prosecution, incarceration and enforcement. There’s more than just the cost of the trial.

And as far as “smoke away”, I don’t smoke pot, never even did when I was undergoing chemo and was offered.

I just don’t agree with the costs or efficacy of enforcement of minor drug charges.

It should legalized, monitored, taxed, and frankly, if someone commits a crime while under the influence, they should be heavily punished. Also, they should be responsible for their own medical exenses.

[Jim Noble]

For years I paid my people extra so they wouldn't do that kind of business. Somebody comes to them and says, "I have powders; if you put up three, four thousand dollar investment, we can make fifty thousand distributing." So they can't resist. I want to control it as a business, to keep it respectable.

I don't want it near schools! I don't want it sold to children! That's an infamia. In my city, we would keep the traffic in the dark people, the coloreds. They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls.

[IrishCatholic]

No, I still didn't miss the point. You won't acknowledge mine because you can't. To do so means I'm right.
Your numbers are crap and taken out of context. I've explained why and provided parallel examples.
I've even allowed it to be legalized for the discussion if you concede the taxpayer shouldn't be held responsible for the associated costs and the law enforcement personnel who have to deal with the extra problems should be given immunity from the increased danger.
Not only prosecution but incarceration costs are usually included for municipality’s fines because they know the set rate for the local county jail. The cities pay the county to house their prisoners. It is why most municipalities prefer fines.
So in essence we don't disagree other than I think freedom should come with personal responsibility.

[spacewarp]

My numbers aren’t taken out of context.

My numbers take into account the cost of prisons that we have and the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail today. My estimates are based on multiple reports. Basically, if you look, just about everyone has different numbers for each day of incarceration. You’re greatly underestimating the savings that could be sustained by legalization of pot.

You’ve gone as far as to tell me to smoke away, even after being told I don’t and have never smoked pot. I don’t have a dog in the hunt other than my hard-earned dollars they’re trying to steal from me at gunpoint daily.

I believe that, like alcohol, pot should be legalized and taxed and regulted. That would destroy the drug trade in many areas. That would reduce costs of many other efforts in both dollars and human costs.

I believe, like I do with alcohol, that if you do not practice personal responsibility, that anyone who, once it’s legalized, causes bodily injury should be held responsible. They should be required to pay their own way, and should be required to be punished heavily if they are under the influence when they harm someone. I believe that alcohol laws should also be alter as such.

I believe we should have freedom. And that leads to a better society.

I also agree with you that with freedom comes responsibility.

[IrishCatholic]

Then we agree to disagree. Your numbers are crap and your resoning is seriously flawed is the part we disagree about.

Personal responsiblity is required for personal freedom is what we agree on.

[spacewarp]

From a USA Today article:
“Estimates place the annual cost of housing an inmate at $18,000 to $31,000 a year. There is no firm separate number for housing an elderly inmate, but there is widespread agreement that it’s significantly higher than for a younger one.”

From an article on crime statistics:

“More people are arrested for possession of drugs than for trafficking, but more are imprisoned for trafficking. A drug trafficker received an average sentence of 69 months in 2001, just under 6 years, and down from the 83 months (7 years) he served in 1996. A sentence for drug possession has increased from a 6 month to a 7 month sentence.”

Do the math.

That means between $9,000 and $18,000 per prisoner for posession. This was in 2001, so I’m sure if I go look, I’ll find some more updated statistics.

Prosecution and enforcement costs will add on an additional cost. So, if we just assume that it’s 50% (low, I know with two lawyers, a judge, at least one police officer, transportation, paperwork, judicial staff, etc), then the average cost for putting one pot user behind bars is at minimum $13,500, at maximum, $27,000. According to the FBI’s numbers, 1.85 million were convicted of drug crimes and sentanced to jail time in 2005. Their percentage of those that were possession of pot were a total of 42.5%. That means 786,250 were incarcerated for pot. At an average cost of $20250 (the average between $13,500 and $27,000), the total cost of incarceration for pot convictions are $15,921,562,500. So, let’s drop the “your numbers are crap.” You have no idea what you’re talking about. We’re talking about something that at least $15 billion of our tax dollars went to prosecuting last year alone. We take the crime out of it, we drop a major portion of that cost as well, we rip the market apart for the harder drugs, ostensibly reducing the other costs in both dollars and human suffering.

We MUST make sure that personal responsibility is a part of any legalization. Period. On that we agree. But, somewhere along the way, you got it in your head that there’s no cost to enforcement and incarceration and want to plug your fingers in your ear like my 7 year old does when he’s confronted with information he doesn’t want to hear. WAKE UP. This is your money, my money, your future, my future, my kids future and if we don’t do something now, we’re going to have to put our kids into this horrible situation.