The "War on Drugs" is dinosaur technology

Huffington POst ^ | 03/22/2015 | Johann Hari

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

How about ending the War on People started by the drug dealers?

It's odd how people advocate shooting looters on sight but not drug dealers. They must value their TV sets more than they value children's souls.

[DiogenesLamp]

There was a time in the U.S. when there was no prohibition against drugs. Somehow we became the richest and most prosperous nation on earth.

I do not know if you are aware that this statement is a lie. It is a lie which is constantly being spread by Libertarians. It is a particularly insidious lie because it has a large component of truth as it's essential ingredient.

Yes, it is true that for the first hundred and thirty years of this nation's existence, there were no drug laws, but that is exceedingly misleading, because it leaves a deliberately false understanding of the history.

There were no drug laws, because there were no drug problems, because their was d@mned little drug usage. There was little usage because their was little supply or familiarity with Cocainoids and Opiates among the population, and what people there were who were familiar with the opiates regarded them as "medicine."

This all changed after the Civil War when thousands of soldiers became addicted to both cocainoid and opiate pain killers as a result of their injuries. It is reported that 400,000 soldiers on both sides developed what was called "the Soldier's disease."

Add to that, the fact that Cocaine Cola became a very popular and fast growing beverage product, and you can see how things were coming into a confrontation with public policy and the law.

Public Health officials started looking at Patent Medicines in the 1890s, and by the 1900s they realized that something was seriously wrong. Too many people were overdosing on drugs and others were becoming hopelessly addicted to them. By 1906, they pushed for the passage of the "Pure food and drug act" which required manufactures to label what was in their product. It turned out that it was a lot of Alcohol, Cocaine, Marijuana, and Opium.

By 1914, they banned most of this stuff with the Harrison anti-narcotics act.

Drug laws were a response to a societal need to address addiction and death which were the subsequent consequence of the increased popularity of drugs in the latter half of the 19th century. Laws weren't needed prior to this time because drugs were not widely available or widely addicted in the populace at the time.

As usage and addiction grew, laws came about to counteract this destructive trend.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm philosophically against long sentences like life/20-years — they are the "feel-good, pat-ourselves on the back" for not-technically taking their lives but taking their lives in the ways that matter (20 years is essentially 1/4 of the lifespan, and it is enough time for kids to grow up and have their own kids) by caging them like an animal… in short, such long sentences devalue the human life and strip them of even the simple dignity of capital punishment.

I too dislike the idea of long prison sentences, though I conceive of the need. I have long contemplated the establishment of "prison villages" where long sentence Inmates can live in a very controlled society, but have an otherwise more tolerable existence.

[DiogenesLamp]

The War on Drugs has never been anything but a war on individual liberty.

More individual liberty was lost by not fighting the war on drugs.

[DiogenesLamp]

The War on Drugs is predicated on the all-pervasive powers of the misreading of the Commerce Clause as per Wickard, the horrid decision of Raich which asserted that marijuana grown inside a state never having been sold at all was under the jurisdiction of the interstate commerce clause was only a small hop but still illustrates the length to which the courts will stretch to validate/justify the unjustifiable: not-commerce suddenly is commerce.

Libertarian talking point. "Commerce" is cited because it is convenient. The court's gave broad powers in their Wickard decision, so "why not use them" is the thinking of various legal officials. Why would they want to fight the issue out for another justification when they've already got "Wickard"? Why work for something when you don't have to?

A more rational authorization for drug interdiction is in the section responsible for defending the nation. Drugs are no different than chemical or biological weapons, and therefore the constitution authorizes the government to stop them.

[DiogenesLamp]

The "war on drugs" doesn't go far enough. We should be invading countries that make drugs for sale on US streets. We should be shooting people who run meth labs on the spot. Tens of thousands of americans have had their lives ruined by drugs, their kids lives, and so on. It's hard to believe that Americans do not take this personally, as they should. Americans should respond to drug dealing and drug manufacturing with maximum prejudice.

I agree. We need to fight "the war on drugs" like it is an actual war. People are saying this "war on drugs" isn't working, and that's because we aren't really fighting it like a war, we are simply pussyfooting around.

When the forces of the law are scoring a body count, then we might have some argument that it is an actual war. Till then it's just a big game.

[ConservingFreedom]

It's odd how people advocate shooting looters on sight but not drug dealers. They must value their TV sets more than they value children's souls.

Those who value children's souls should recognize that drug criminalization has failed to protect children; teens have been reporting for years that they can get pot more easily than cigarettes or beer - which stands to reason, since only sellers of legal goods have incentive to 'card' buyers.

[DiogenesLamp]

Being a conservative libertarian, I’m interested in the smallest degree of government control possible. This isn’t a comfortable paradigm for most. So yeah, there’s the risk you mentioned.

Good! So you don't want a social collapse which leads to a dictatorship. I don't either.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Those who value children's souls should recognize that drug criminalization has failed to protect children

Are you in favor of shooting looters? A simple yes or no would do.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nonsense! It is the Drug War that will lead to tyranny.

Not having a drug war leads to tyranny faster.

For most of this nation's history there was no regulations on drugs.

I addressed this lie in a previous message.

Americans built a vibrant and strong nation.

In which drugs had no positive role or existence for much of that period. We did it in spite of drugs, not as a consequence of them.

[ConservingFreedom]

We should be shooting people who run meth labs on the spot.

You want to jettison the Constitutional right to trial by jury; why are you posting on a pro-Constitution site?

[ConservingFreedom]

Those who value children's souls should recognize that drug criminalization has failed to protect children; teens have been reporting for years that they can get pot more easily than cigarettes or beer - which stands to reason, since only sellers of legal goods have incentive to 'card' buyers.

Are you in favor of shooting looters? A simple yes or no would do.

I have no opinion on that question.

[DiogenesLamp]

And here comes the most prominent drug pusher on Free Republic to add his deliberate propaganda to the discussion.

Dead drug dealers are even less of a threat to children.

[ConservingFreedom]

Drugs are no different than chemical or biological weapons

Nonsense - nobody uses chemical or biological weapons against themselves.

[ConservingFreedom]

Dead drug dealers

Under our Constitutional right to trial by jury, dealers are replaced as fast as they're taken out of circulation. Do you support jettisoning that Constitutional right?

[zeugma]

Exterminate all drug dealers On the spot. They care nothing about individuals or society.

Yeah, who needs the rule of law, a legal system, or any of that other constitutional crap?

 

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Yeah, who needs the rule of law, a legal system, or any of that other constitutional crap?

You won't be needing any of that anyway once the nation turns into the giant drug-fueled sewer that libertarians dream of.

[zeugma]

I’m also about NOT giving up more of our freedoms in the name of the WOD.

If they can't keep drugs out of prisons, where they have absolute and complete control and the population has no constitutional rights to speak of, how the hell do they expect it to work in an allegedly free society?

The simple answer is they don't. The drug war is an excuse used to butress the ever expanding power of the police state,and the money it generates. Asset forfeiture is big business.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I have no opinion on that question.

Come now, you don't think that looters have a right to a fair trial before they are shot?

[ConservingFreedom]

once the nation turns into the giant drug-fueled sewer

Who are these millions supposedly now deterred from drug use by the risk of jail but who under legalization would be undeterred by addiction and death? Are you one of them?