U.S. drug war has met none of its goals (War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure)

AP ^ | 2010-05-13 | Martha Mendoza

[rabscuttle385]

MEXICO CITY (AP) – After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

[Seruzawa]

Good to the some of the Free Republic Drug Warriors (Armchair Division) still carrying the flag. Who cares about the costs? It’s about being righteous no matter how many other people are kidnapped and murdered. They are sacrifices on the altar of self-righteousness.

[pissant]

State govs also outlaw drugs. Is that illegal too?

[whence911]

ditto that

[dcwusmc]

It’s morally reprehensible and wrong, but it might conceivably be legal. But again, WHY? If you favor the war on some drugs, what sets you apart from the Left? What makes you any different than Obambi or his Constitution-wrecking crew?

(Notice that there is no reason for you not to preach against drug use or use your powers of moral suasion to convince others to abstain; there is EVERY reason to renounce the use of GOVERNMENT FORCE to do your bidding!)

[SoConPubbie]

There, fixed it for you. Somehow the republic managed to stagger on with drugs legal right up to about 1913 or 1914, when different ethnic groups were targeted by government for demonization and control. Chinese were users of smokable opium, for example, so their intoxicant of choice was demonized by the oft repeated claim that Chinese men would lure white women into their opium dens, get them high on opium and then debauch them. The American Medical Association was adamant that outlawing drugs was NOT medically indicated and could cause serious problems of its own. But they were ignored by a Congress too interested in asserting more and more control over the lives of others... sort of what they are doing yet to this day. (And recall that the very Progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, he who segregated the armed forces, which had been integrated to that point, was President and was both anxious to HAVE this control AND very intolerant of the "lesser" races.) Some justification for your war on some drugs, huh?

And I am so sure the moral structure of the culture is comparable between now and then, right?

But then pro-druggies really aren't real concerned about the state or morality of the culture, are they?

What is really funny, is that many libertarians believe they are closer to the founder's original vision than anyone else, but History shows a much different reality.

Morality was infused into the very legal structure of the states, from anti-sodomy laws, anti-divorce laws, laws establing state religions, blue laws. Our laws were riddled with morality and the culture, for the most part, frowned on whatever the church, in general, frowned upon.

Fast-forward today, where the strong moral and religious culture has been replaced with a me-first and even a me-only culture and you let loose drug legalization and you will come close to destroying this country.

[pissant]

Why? Same reason that pharmaceuticals are tested before approved. Same reason states have a dinking age. Same reason you can’t marry your dad though you might love him dearly. Same reason you can’t walk around naked at the local strip mall. Same reason you can’t use creosote to keep your lawn from growing too fast. Same reason you can’t juggle live grenades in the median of main street. Same reason you can’t ride a cow in the supermarket. The same reason you can’t live in the local park. Same reason you can’t sit and stare in the window of the local grade school.

[Hepsabeth]

Who still supports it? The people on the receiving end of all that tax money, that’s who. They want to keep that gravy train rolling.

[dcwusmc]

No, actually I don’t believe the country will be destroyed by re-legalizing drugs. I believe that the war on some drugs is destroying the Constitution, at an ever more rapid rate. I believe that there is NO PLACE in a free society for the kinds of control over others that is engendered by this “war.” I believe that some drug users, after re-legalization, may put themselves in contention for the Darwin Awards by OD’ing and removing themselves from the realm of the living. I believe that MOST drug users, as it is today, will continue to be responsible and moderate in their recreation, just as MOST folks who use the drug alcohol are... with some notable exceptions, but you aren’t willing to instate Prohibition III are you? And re-criminalize the use of alcohol and outlaw tobacco?

Where did you ever get the notion that it’s OK to have this sort of control over other folks’ lives? Why, I bet it was that Progressive Democrat, Woody Wilson, wasn’t it? And you bought into his lies, didn’t you? As I told pissant, there is no reason on earth for you to NOT go out and preach against drug use (but don’t forget “demon rum” when you do) and use every ounce of moral suasion you can muster, but there is EVERY REASON to renounce the use of government force to do the job for you. Do you call yourself a Christian? If so, can you point out to me where Jesus told His followers to get laws passed to prevent sin? I simply cannot find it ANYWHERE in my Bible. In fact I found quite the opposite. I find where He says that we are supposed to go forth and BE WITNESSES to His saving GRACE. How does that stack up to trashing our Constitution by getting laws passed to do the work that rightly falls on the Church?

[SoConPubbie]

Where did you ever get the notion that it’s OK to have this sort of control over other folks’ lives? Why, I bet it was that Progressive Democrat, Woody Wilson, wasn’t it? And you bought into his lies, didn’t you? As I told pissant, there is no reason on earth for you to NOT go out and preach against drug use (but don’t forget “demon rum” when you do) and use every ounce of moral suasion you can muster, but there is EVERY REASON to renounce the use of government force to do the job for you. Do you call yourself a Christian? If so, can you point out to me where Jesus told His followers to get laws passed to prevent sin? I simply cannot find it ANYWHERE in my Bible. In fact I found quite the opposite. I find where He says that we are supposed to go forth and BE WITNESSES to His saving GRACE. How does that stack up to trashing our Constitution by getting laws passed to do the work that rightly falls on the Church?

The same place that says it is OK to have control over people's lives where Gay Marriage is concerned, Murder is concerned, Deviancy is concerned, Lying is concerned, child abuse is concerned, etc. etc. etc.

God's word, the Bible.

The same book the founder's used to guide them through the process of designing the legal structure of this country and many of the State laws of the time.

But libertarians, mistakenly believe that the founders didn't have this "problem", but were instead libertarians themselves.

They weren't as history shows.

They were Christian men who relied on their understanding of God's word containing both laws for men's lives and describing the basic selfish evil nature of man, to design a system the protects against the selfish nature of Man and creates a framework, where a basic morality was meant to be a guiding factor.

Libertarians are basicly the greedy, anarchist, ungodly version of the GOP.

Not that the GOP does not have it's problems, it does, and we are doing the best to correct those problems, but the Libertarian party is not the solution.

[dcwusmc]

Gee whiz, just about everything you list (except the “dad” part. Eeew!! Icky! You’re sick!) sounds just like what LOCAL COMMUNITIES should do to control PUBLIC BEHAVIORS. Something I have no issues with whatsoever. It is what one does IN PRIVATE or with consenting others that is not the business of government.

Oh, and the drinking age thing... that is something best left to FAMILIES to deal with, again NOT THE LEGITIMATE province of government. And there is (once more) NO AUTHORITY GRANTED to government to “approve” or disapprove pharmaceuticals, period. That was, once again, a gift from the Progressive Left (this time the Pubbie, Teddy Roosevelt, another big government power-grabber).

Why is it that people like you, personable and even likable in many other ways, have swallowed so much of the big government Kool Aid?

[SoConPubbie]

Do you call yourself a Christian? If so, can you point out to me where Jesus told His followers to get laws passed to prevent sin?

You apparently have not read the complete New Testament.

Just look for the scripture where Jesus said, and I paraphrase, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fullful the law" and also, "Do not change the law one jot or tittle".

He was referring to the Old Testament, you remember that right?

The old Testament that included laws for just about everything, laws that were meant for a Government to enforce, even though Jesus was referring to his goal of changing Men's hearts, he surely meant, as well, that the laws of our land should reflect the laws in the Old Testament that he came to enforce in the hearts of Men.

Do you feel otherwise?

[dcwusmc]

Oh, where to begin? Hmmmm...

Homosexual “marriage” is wrong because it implies family. Families often involve CHILDREN. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce their own kind, there must be recruitment. This involves the participation of children (not unlike that homosexual professor or whatever he was at Duke, offering up his FIVE YEAR OLD foster child on the internet for sex with anyone who had the right price). Children are NOT capable of giving informed consent to such acts; thus they are VICTIMS of these predators. Thus, such “marriage” can rightly be outlawed. (And I am no longer willing to allow homosexuals to hold sway over the word “gay.” They are NOT gay (happy, even giddy sometimes); they are mostly miserable and to allow them to further corrupt the language as they have corrupted society is unacceptable to me and morally WRONG!)

Murder, lying (mostly), child abuse, deviancy (involving others INVOLUNTARILY, including animals), rape, robbery, et cetera, all have one thing in common, which is why they are (almost) universally banned: THERE IS AN INJURED PARTY who has either not GIVEN consent to be part of that activity OR is incapable, either by age or mental capacity, of giving voluntary, informed consent.

Drug usage is a VOLUNTARY, consensual activity. Please try again.

(Oh, and by the way, I am NOT a Libertarian. I am a STRICT Constitutionist.)

[dcwusmc]

According to Paul (who should know), we are NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW or bound by it. We are under God’s GRACE as expressed by Christ’s death on the cross AND HIS RESURRECTION, giving us victory over not only sin and the LAW (by His sacrifice) but over DEATH ITSELF. Yes, there are things we should not do, as Christians, it’s true. But our relationship to the law of the Old Testament has changed completely.

[CitizenUSA]

dcwusmc, why are you always posting this drug legalization crap?

pissant and SoConPubbie are 100% correct—states have the legal right to make drugs illegal (and will do so) no matter what the federal government does. Plus, the federal government is constitutionally permitted to regulate interstate commerce and ban the import of whatever drugs it wants.

[bamahead]

Oh sure it has...It's militarized most of our police forces, made property rights a joke, and destroyed the 4th amendment!
(I'm laying it on thick today!)



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

[Ken H]

Rasmussen has the California ballot initiative to tax and regulate marijuana ahead 49%-38% as of last November.

Suppose CA does pass the measure. Would you support its Tenth Amendment prerogative to enact the program without fedgov interference? Or, would you support fedgov shutting down the program under authority of the Commerce Clause?

[ken21]

what we got was gang violence, prostitution, and crooked cops from the “drug war”.

[MamaTexan]

War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure

The 'War on Drugs' is unconstitutional as Hell.

[CitizenUSA]

Would I support the right of a state to legalize drugs within its borders? Yes.

Would I vote to legalize marijuana in my own state. Nope.

My opinion of the Commerce Clause? If the activity doesn’t involve commerce (buying and selling of goods) and isn’t among the several states (between states), the Commerce Clause does not apply.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I think Wickard v. Filburn is one of the most blatant power grabs in the history of this nation. It was legal in the sense that the SCOTUS ruled, but it was clearly an immoral, subversive, and dishonest interpretation of the Constitution.

[fnord]

“U.S. drug war has met none of its goals (War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure)”

It’s said that those who think socialism has always failed misunderstand its purpose. The same can be said about the WoD.

I think it has met plenty of its goals: terrorizing citizens without repercussion, trillions of taxpayer dollars soaked up, not to mention asset forfeiture to incentivize arrests. They get lifetime sinecures in a bloated bureaucracy, and they get lots of cool toys to play with. The exact opposite of failure.