Since I was not comparing the act of bank robbery to the act of illicit drug abuse, why do you keep attacking the non-existent comparison? Bank robbery is just one example of an illegal activity that is kept in check but not eliminated by being made illegal, but I could have selected any illegal activity as an example. Rape, murder, tax fraud, speeding--none of these have been eliminated as a result of being made illegal. To claim that the "war on drugs" failed because drug abuse has not disappeared despite it being illegal is equivalent to claiming that the "war on indecent exposure" has been lost because people still illegally expose themselves. You have to come up with a better argument than that.
And some don't - in fact, the majority of users don't become addicted at all. It is immoral to punish non-harming addicts and nonaddicted users for what some addicts do (in general, and particularly the noncriminal harms of being homeless and begging).
Anyone who continues using an illicit substance on a regular and prolonged basis is addicted or well on the way to becoming addicted, regardless of their claims to the contrary. Many illicit drugs cause physical brain changes. One change that occurs is that the person loses their ability to resist the drug, even when they know that the drug is killing them. Why is punishing drug abusers immoral? Maybe being forcibly removed from the harmful effects of drugs is what they need in order to stop destroying their lives. Even in cases where addicts do not become violent and turn to begging rather than crime to feed their addictions, their addiction is still hurting people. The parents of an addict never look at their son or daughter's self-destruction as anything other than a tragedy; no one ever points at a homeless bum and brags, "There's my dad! I want to be just like him!" I would say that the psychological harm suffered by the family of a non-violent drug addict is just as serious and real as the physical or economic harm done by the more violent addicts.
Government - especially the federal government of strictly enumerated Constitutional limits - has no general mandate to prevent "damage" ... much less to do so by violating the liberties of non-damagers.
Sorry, but the Constitution mandates that the government both protect the citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic--it does not specify that the enemies must be enemy combatants--and that the government provide for the general welfare (which is a synonym for well-being, and has nothing to do with endless handouts).
Blaming the drugs is like blaming the gun. Broadly based investigations show that most of those vicious/crazy on drugs were already vicious/crazy off drugs. And note that anti-drug laws did not prevent your uncle from getting those drugs.
I blame the drugs because of the well-characterized brain damage that drugs cause, and because psychotic behavior is sometimes a component of the "high" that drugs cause. Like it or not, the brain damage that drug abuse causes makes some people violent, an effect which can manifest when they are sober and is exacerbated when they are high. Remember what I said about drugs changing the physical structure of the brain? Violence is one possible outcome of that kind of damage.
I'm surprised that you did not note that anti-murder laws did not prevent my uncle from committing murder. Also, anti-rape laws did not prevent him from committing rape, anti-desertion laws did not prevent him from deserting the Army, and anti-whatever other criminal activity he engaged in did not prevent him from committing those crimes. I suppose the only answer, then, is to make all those activities legal--since, obviously, making them illegal didn't stop them. Besides, it is just so unfair to keep a man locked up for decades just because his favorite activities are illegal (to use your pro-drug legalization argument).
Bank robberies are detected 100% of the time, potential victims take all manner of preventive measures beforehand, and actual victims cooperate in investigations afterward. The vast majority of illegal drug transactions go undetected, and those involved actively seek out those transactions and strive to avoid investigation. Laws against consensual acts are, by the nature of the act, doomed to futility.
Before we go off on your latest tangent, let's note that it is a tangent from the above question: whether bank robbery refutes the anti-War-on-Drugs argument that the WoD is failing. As I showed, it is apples-and-oranges so not a refutation.
Since I was not comparing the act of bank robbery to the act of illicit drug abuse, why do you keep attacking the non-existent comparison? Bank robbery is just one example of an illegal activity that is kept in check but not eliminated by being made illegal,
That's the comparison you made - the non-elimination of bank robbery and of drug use - and I refuted by noting that one is combatted by its victims before and after while the other is assisted by its participants. Two-thirds of murders are solved, and probably an even higher proportion of bank robberies, whereas the percentage of incidents of drug use that are even detected is certainly several orders of magnitude smaller.
To claim that the "war on drugs" failed because drug abuse has not disappeared despite it being illegal
Who claimed that?
And some don't - in fact, the majority of users don't become addicted at all. It is immoral to punish non-harming addicts and nonaddicted users for what some addicts do (in general, and particularly the noncriminal harms of being homeless and begging).
Anyone who continues using an illicit substance on a regular and prolonged basis is addicted or well on the way to becoming addicted, regardless of their claims to the contrary.
Probably true for some definition of "regular and prolonged" (including alcohol use) - a definition that many users don't meet.
Many illicit drugs cause physical brain changes. One change that occurs is that the person loses their ability to resist the drug, even when they know that the drug is killing them.
Alcohol has the same effect on many people. And many people use illicit drugs and never become addicted.
Why is punishing drug abusers immoral? Maybe being forcibly removed from the harmful effects of drugs is what they need in order to stop destroying their lives. Even in cases where addicts do not become violent and turn to begging rather than crime to feed their addictions, their addiction is still hurting people. The parents of an addict never look at their son or daughter's self-destruction as anything other than a tragedy; no one ever points at a homeless bum and brags, "There's my dad! I want to be just like him!" I would say that the psychological harm suffered by the family of a non-violent drug addict is just as serious and real as the physical or economic harm done by the more violent addicts.
Not government's business - see the following.
Government - especially the federal government of strictly enumerated Constitutional limits - has no general mandate to prevent "damage" ... much less to do so by violating the liberties of non-damagers.
Sorry, but the Constitution mandates that the government both protect the citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic
No it doesn't - search the text of the Constitution at the following link and you won't find those words: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.
and that the government provide for the general welfare (which is a synonym for well-being, and has nothing to do with endless handouts).
That's a general statement of purpose, not a grant of authority; it occurs once in the preamble and once just before an enumerated list of congressional powers. Federalist 41 makes this crystal clear.
Blaming the drugs is like blaming the gun. Broadly based investigations show that most of those vicious/crazy on drugs were already vicious/crazy off drugs. And note that anti-drug laws did not prevent your uncle from getting those drugs.
Like it or not, the brain damage that drug abuse causes makes some people violent, an effect which can manifest when they are sober and is exacerbated when they are high. Remember what I said about drugs changing the physical structure of the brain? Violence is one possible outcome of that kind of damage.
Sounds like urban legend to me - have any scientific studies to back that up?
I'm surprised that you did not note that anti-murder laws did not prevent my uncle from committing murder. Also, anti-rape laws did not prevent him from committing rape, anti-desertion laws did not prevent him from deserting the Army, and anti-whatever other criminal activity he engaged in did not prevent him from committing those crimes. I suppose the only answer, then, is to make all those activities legal--since, obviously, making them illegal didn't stop them.
No, because those crimes by their nature are stopped or solved far more often than drug crimes - and, unlike drug crimes, are violations of individual rights.
Besides, it is just so unfair to keep a man locked up for decades just because his favorite activities are illegal (to use your pro-drug legalization argument).
I have never made that argument. My argument is that all drug users shouldn't be punished for what some drug users do.
No doubt there are some people on this site whose conservative views cause "psychological harm" to their Obamabot friends and reliatives; by your argument, their accounts ought to be cancelled so that they can be "forcibly removed" from continuing to inflict this "harm".