The War on Drugs is Immoral and Ineffective

Despite increased efforts, manpower, and resources, the war on drugs has been a resounding failure. W.C. fields once quipped, “If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it.” Not only does the government continue to fail in its crusade against drugs, it continues to perpetrate a policy of immense immorality. It has been over forty years since President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. What do we have to show for it? The United States has wasted over one trillion dollars, caused incarceration rates to exceed that of the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin, discriminated heavily against African-Americans, propped up the drug cartels, and allowed drug profits to flow into the pockets of al-Qaeda and other such terrorist groups.

The biggest success in the war on drugs has been the protection of drug cartel’s profits. In a standard legalized business, there are countless importers and exporters of a particular good. However, due to drug raids and seizures, the price of maintaining an operation has been driven up, forcing out small time distributors. This allows the only viable distributors to be those with enough money and resources to avoid interdiction efforts. These are the highly violent drug cartels that are flush with cash. By keeping goods out and arresting local distributors, the government keeps the price of these drugs up. What else could a monopolist want?

From 1776 to 1914, drugs were mostly legal on a federal and local level. What was so wrong with that period of time? Alcohol prohibition clearly failed, creating a black market for alcohol, resulting in organized crime fueled by the likes of Al Capone. Drug prohibition in the United States has created the monsters known as drug cartels...

It's HEAVY drug use FOLLOWED BY CONCEPTION that creates a victim -

The amount of a drug that can, and does, result in deficits in the developing fetus, whether physical or cognitive, DOES NOT REQUIRE HEAVY OR REPEATED USE!

Evidence?

so your argument no more supports a drug ban than a conception ban.

This logical conclusion stands unrefuted.

And birth defects are also linked to alcohol and tobacco; do you favor banning those drugs too, or is your concern for yet-unconceived potential victims selective?

So, because there are substances which can result in birth defects that are not drugs,

Actually, they are drugs - legal ones.

therefore, society should embrace drug use.

What a transparent and feeble misrepresentation of my argument. My actual argument, as I clearly stated, is that genuine concern for birth defects - as opposed to using them as a smokescreen - would call for a ban on those legal drugs just as surely as a continued ban on illegal drugs.

In 2012, the US drug survey (first started in 2002) found that 8.9% of the American population 12 and over had used illicit drugs in the last 30 days. That is an overall change from the late 1970's estimates of about 9.5%. I don't think ANYONE in their right mind would consider a .6% decrease over a three decade, trillion-dollar cost a "success!"

Not sure where you get your numbers from but I'll share with you what I know.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health was performed initially in 1971 by Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse and is now an annual event sponsored by SAMHSA. Illegal drug use peaked in 1979 with 14.1% of the population 12 years and older using drugs in the previous 30 days. The 2012 survey results are not yet available, but the 2011 survey results reported that 8.7% of the population 12 years and older using drugs in the previous 30 days.

This is a decrease in the rate of illegal drug use of 38%! This would be an enormous success for anyone much less for the Federal government. Since most of their programs tend to be colossal failures.

Drug use during pregnancy was first reported in a survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in 1992. They reported that just over 5% of pregnant mothers used illegal drugs. The NSDUH survey from 2008 reported 4.3%.

Another decrease in rate of use. This time of 14%!

Finally your 540% increase for drug overdoses seems to be another complete fabrication. Nowhere in the literature can I find such a claim.

I assume you're referring to this CDC report based on the dates you used. However this report also includes poisoning deaths due to things like carbon monoxide poisoning, something that was never intended to be addressed by the War on Drugs.

In fact, data on overdoses due to the use of illegal drugs seems to have been swamped by overdoses due to legal drugs. Now that more states have been trying to make marijuana legal, I believe that data on overdoses of illegal drugs will be lost entirely.

I suspect you're involved in one of these harm reduction groups. You only care about your "right" to do whatever you want regardless of the damage and cost to others.

The War on Drugs was an attempt to prevent people from getting lost in the drug underclass. Drug using workers have a higher incidence of involuntary absences from work. 32% of drug using workers lose their jobs due to degrading work performance and unsafe events on the job. They start jumping to increasingly lower salary jobs until they drop out of the work force. The rest of us pay for this in increased prices.

In Chicago, 82% of persons arrested test positive for illegal drugs. 35% of these are using multiple illegal drugs. Since they can't work, they're forced to steal from the rest of us so they can get the money they need to satisfy their addictions. In 1989, a New York city study found that 67% of DUI suspects were taking 2 or more illegal drugs. Putting the safety of the rest of us at risk.

I stand by my original comment.

If your user name is correct, I thank you for your service and pray you get help for your addictions.

If your user name is correct, I thank you for your service and pray you get help for your addictions.

First, I am trying to have a good conversation, so why do you need to attempt to insult me by implying that I have some sort of addiction?

For the record, before I joined the Marine Corps, I used marijuana on an inter-mitten basis, but never was a "regular" user. After joining and since departing the Marine Corps, I haven't touched illicit drugs. As a matter of fact, while in the Marine Corps, I was the drug officer for two of units and my current job deals with drug users and their actions. Every company I have worked for since I turned 18 has performed pre-employeement and random drug screens, and you might be surprised to find that I have never tested positive for anything that was illegal. So, before we continue, just because the government has over stepped their bounds doesn't imply that I or anyone else who wish to point this out is an "addict."

Can I assume that you believe that all the pro-2nd Amendment Freepers are just murderers and psychopaths who you are attempting save from themselves and each other?

I got my numbers from various sources on internet, you can search and find them just as I did. The problem with both of our sources is much like the "illegal alien" numbers: they are skewed to favor which ever side that is wielding the numbers. But, just to be OVERLY fair, let's use your numbers.

So, over four decades of increased militarizing of our local law enforcement and laws that allow no-knock entries, asset forfeiture laws and a general overall attitude which makes the police think they have the right to do anything because the ends justify the means - you think is a good thing. Of course, I didn't mention the numerous wrongful deaths, destruction of private property and WRONG address no-knock entries.

Over those four decades, we have spent trillions of dollars on the war on drugs and you think a 38% and 14% reductions are acceptable results for the amount of money and the amount of rights lost! I on the other hand think we are throwing money AND OUT RIGHTS down a rabbit hole! By the way about 37% of the annual Federal WOD budget goes to law enforcement efforts while about 35% is used for treatment purposes! So, for all the rights lost and money spent, we are still spending as much on treating people already LOST in the morass of illicit drugs as we are spending on trying to keep people out of it: I consider that a failure!

It is funny that you would come on a Conservative website and then denigrate the idea of individual "rights" and individual freedoms. I bet we can agree that drugs are bad. I have lost family members and friends to drugs. I have had family and friends go to prison because of drugs. I have terminated many men for popping positive on random drug screens - good workers that I hated to lose. But, I have fired MORE people for alcohol related work-performance (DUI, drunk on duty, etc...) than all other drugs combined!

The problem that I have is that the government has overstepped it's limits because of people like you think it is the governments job to limit everyone, because someone MIGHT cause a problem. Well, unfortunately that is the price of true freedom - someone might do something wrong or dangerous that endangers others and then you write laws to limit his actions which endangered others (DUI, vehicular manslaughter, etc...)! You want to assume that everyone who does drugs is out to hurt, harm, maim or infringe upon others - and that is a FAR stretch in my book.

Even worse, people like you are trying to regulate MORALITY. People should have the morals to not use drugs (they are bad for you and will kill you) and they should have the morals to not show up to work on drugs (I agreed to work a good days work for pay, then I have to follow the rules of no drugs). No law is ever going to eliminate peoples basic wonder and curiosity when it comes to drugs - it will NOT happen.

More importantly, your whole assertion about the cost of work injuries and higher goods and higher crime is a proven point of failure every single time it has been tried: prohibition does not work! Alcohol prohibition in the US saw RISE in every single one of the items which you mentioned. The WOD has caused every single one of the items which you mentioned to RISE! So, your whole point of including this data is an illogical delusion since you refuse to learn from the past.

I will end with a simple question: should we bring back Alcohol Prohibition? If not, then why not? I mean alcohol accounts for more work related and road related incidents than any other drug. So, do you think the government should reinstate Prohibition?

Oh, it peaked then? What was the 1971 figure? It's not available at http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nhsda/ar18tbl.htm.

The 2012 survey results are not yet available, but the 2011 survey results reported that 8.7% of the population 12 years and older using drugs in the previous 30 days.

This is a decrease in the rate of illegal drug use of 38%! This would be an enormous success for anyone much less for the Federal government.

And from 1980 to 1995, alcohol consumption dropped by 23% (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm), while from 1973 to 2006 cigarette smoking dropped by 59% (http://www.lung.org/finding-cures/our-research/trend-reports/Tobacco-Trend-Report.pdf) - all while alcohol and cigarettes remained legal. Correlation is not causation. Giving the War on Drugs credit is the ancient logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this therefore because of this") - like the rooster who claimed his crowing caused the sun to rise.

Drug using workers have a higher incidence of involuntary absences from work. 32% of drug using workers lose their jobs due to degrading work performance and unsafe events on the job. They start jumping to increasingly lower salary jobs until they drop out of the work force. The rest of us pay for this in increased prices.

If individuals choose to make themselves less productive - through drugs, alcohol, or staying up too late - it's the rankest collectivism to regard this as a "cost" to "the rest of us" that justifies restricting individuals' liberties.

And note that the DEA says 75% of adults who used drugs in the past month are employed.

In Chicago, 82% of persons arrested test positive for illegal drugs. 35% of these are using multiple illegal drugs.

You say 8.7% of the population uses drugs - has anything close to 8.7% of the population been imprisoned? If not, then drug use does not cause criminal behavior.

Since they can't work, they're forced to steal from the rest of us so they can get the money they need to satisfy their addictions.

They'd steal less - if at all, instead of can collecting or panhandling - if the War on Drugs wasn't hyperinflating drug prices.

In 1989, a New York city study found that 67% of DUI suspects were taking 2 or more illegal drugs. Putting the safety of the rest of us at risk.

Alcohol DUI puts the safety of the rest of us at risk - is that sufficient reason to ban that drug?

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.