The War on Drugs: A War Where Everybody is a Loser

CrowdH News ^ | 10/31/17 | Andreas Salmen

[Bonston]

The US government has created a business out of putting people in jail, a quite lucrative one at that. Privately run prisons thrive due to those minimum sentencing practices, while taxpayers pay for often disproportionately long prison times for people that are no immediate harm to anyone but themselves. And as a reaction those individuals are persecuted to the fullest extent, lives are being destroyed, and the nation’s workforce is diminished while the costs are paid by society.

Instead of a helping hand, the U.S. has introduced the tradition of handing out handcuffs to those related to drugs. And that is exactly what we have to talk about.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's certainly a broad, Hamiltonian view of the boundaries of the Constitution. Inanimate objects, wholly without life, even, can actually be considered "enemies" of a state?

I didn't think I needed to point out that it was the people who were supplying them that are the enemies of the state. I was using the term "drugs" metaphorically to represent the "Drug Industry."

[DiogenesLamp]

Until 1909 you could walk into a pharmacy and buy opiates and cocaine legally in the USA. And you could buy jars with Cocaine and Heroin labels to store the purchases.

And it was the massive increases in addictions and overdose suicides that convinced people that this condition could no longer be tolerated. That's why we banned drugs.

And the famous soda Coca-Cola used the original formula for decades.

And you don't think putting cocaine in soda was going to eventually turn out badly for the public?

[Sopater]

Tobacco doesn't induce people to rob and steal. Dope does.

Money induces people to rob and steal, so it must be an enemy, too.

[DiogenesLamp]

Dr. Bartalo in “Barber of Seville” (1818) hated Figaro because Figaro doped up the member’s of Dr. Bartalo’s household.

A lot of people back in that era didn't realize the danger that drugs posed. There was a famous doctor from later that century that studied the use of opioid or cocanoids for pain control, and accidentally addicted himself. He struggled with it for the rest of his life.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nor do I. However, just because the federal gov't hasn't banned something, the states are not prohibited from doing as they see best. It won't be "legalized" unless the states want to legalize it. My argument is that it cannot constitutionally be prohibited at the federal level.

Can anthrax spores be prohibited at the Federal level? Can VX nerve agent be prohibited at the Federal level?

[NobleFree]

You don't have any real data from that time period.

And yet in post #42 you refer to "the massive increases in addictions". Hilarious how anti-drug mania leads you to make contradictory arguments within a few posts and minutes of each other.

[DiogenesLamp]

Money induces people to rob and steal, so it must be an enemy, too.

Perhaps it is, but as it is also a necessity, we will have to tolerate this evil known as "money."

We don't have to tolerate drugs. They are not a necessity.

[csivils]

You and the egg heads can argue about valid records. For me, the claim that civil assets forfeiture is a legal action against the property rather than the owner may sound good to the same bunch of eggheads, but not to anyone with a lick of common sense or respect for the constitution. Same thing for your claim that Chinese history has anything to do with the belief the war on drugs has overreached the constitutional boundaries.

[Garth Tater]

"Can anthrax spores be prohibited at the Federal level?"

For personal use?

[csivils]

Prescription drug abuse is currently rampant. Are you going to wave your hand and claim those are not needed either? How about guns... your same logic is loved by the gun grabbers.

[DiogenesLamp]

And yet in post #42 you refer to "the massive increases in addictions". Hilarious how anti-drug mania leads you to make contradictory arguments within a few posts and minutes of each other.

Not contradictory at all. I'm not citing "massive increases in addictions" as a statistically proven fact, the way you were attempting to do with your techno gibberish from 1842. People could look around and see for themselves that a lot of people were dying from drug overdoses. It had become noticeable.

Newspaper accounts of the era were carrying stories about deaths and addictions.

This publication was put out on June 3, 1905.

The prime ingredients in these "Patent Medicines"? Opium and Cocaine.

[DiogenesLamp]

You and the egg heads can argue about valid records. For me, the claim that civil assets forfeiture is a legal action against the property rather than the owner may sound good to the same bunch of eggheads, but not to anyone with a lick of common sense or respect for the constitution.

I don't agree with civil asset forfeiture, and I don't really understand how anyone ever thought that wasn't a violation of the fifth amendment's prohibition on taking people's property without "due process."

Civil Asset forfeiture should never have been law.

[Bonston]

What would you like to know specifically? I’ll be sure to share more diverse articles on what I believe in, most of which will strike conservative ground.This was just the first one I wanted to share, I’m sorry if that seems to shed a bad light on my account but I do not intend to infiltrate you by any means.

[DiogenesLamp]

For personal use?

There is no "personal use" exemption for deadly threats to the people of the United States.

That people claim they are importing something for "personal use" is irrelevant. It's clear enough that those who import drugs are addicting millions of people with these dangerous substances.

[Brian Griffin]

“And it was the massive increases in addictions and overdose suicides that convinced people that this condition could no longer be tolerated. That’s why we banned drugs.”

And turned a bad problem into a terrible problem.

It’s better to live with a bad problem than have 50,000 people year die from a terrible problem.

We know the police can’t win the war from 108 years of hard effort.

I have suggested above that the problem literally be watered down to a non-lethal one.

[csivils]

War on drugs was used to justify civil asset theft by the government. Proclaimed to be a vital tool against drug lords, now commonly used against normal citizens. The stats say the government seized more last year than burglars stole... I think WOD is way out of control.

[DiogenesLamp]

Prescription drug abuse is currently rampant.

That problem needs to be addressed. Even though necessary medications are being abused, this does not justify unnecessary drugs being abused.

[Brian Griffin]

“And you don’t think putting cocaine in soda was going to eventually turn out badly for the public?”

The crack cocaine problem is far worse than the genuine formula cola problem ever was.

[Sopater]

Can anthrax spores be prohibited at the Federal level? Can VX nerve agent be prohibited at the Federal level?

Not within the confines of the Constitution.

[Uncle Miltie]

National Security Conservatism.

Fiscal Conservatism.

Economic Conservatism, a la Friedman (formerly)

- OR -

Economic Nationalism, a la Trump (currently)

Cultural Conservatism.

Constitutional Conservatism.

Borders, language, culture.

Size and scope of government.

Natural Rights.

The nature of the country’s founding.

The Laffer Curve.

Establishmentarianism versus Populism.

The floor is yours.