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]

The wrong type of legalized drugs.

And what is the "right type" of legalized drugs? I dare say if we make some legal and others not, there will come along people like you who will object to the illegality of whatever drugs we have made illegal. They will point to the legal ones and say "What about those?"

Also, how do you split hairs on your position such that you can postulate that there are a "right" type and a "wrong" type of legalized drugs? Isn't your entire premise that drugs should be legalized?

If you should object to some drugs being legalized, does not that put you in the role of the same nanny state nanny which you try to cast on myself and others?

Mao was able to take over China because of Japanese interference and Nationalist corruption.

Mao was able to take over China because their three thousand year old system of governance had collapsed as a result of the Chaos of legalized drugs. The Japanese were themselves importing hundreds of tons of Opium into China every year, and this helped to finance the Japanese war machine that later invaded.

Had China not been so weak, the much smaller Japan would have never attempted to invade it. It was weak because drugs destroyed it's vitality. Drugs destroyed the health of that nation.

China was suffering the upheavals that would beset any nation that had allowed such widespread addiction to come to it's population.

[DiogenesLamp]

That phrase occurs nowhere in the Constitution, Mr. Penumbral Emanationist.

Just read section 8. It's close enough.

[DiogenesLamp]

So in the Diogonary, "massive" and "noticeable" are synonyms ... fascinating.

I didn't say they were equal, that is your straw man speaking. But I will say they are not mutually exclusive.

Usually something "massive" becomes "noticeable, but that depends on who is paying attention.

[peeps36]

The drug war is an expensive failure. We have cheap and potent heroin in every community across America. I've never seen anything like it. Kids can get heroin easier then alcohol. I blame the government for forcing doctor's to treat pain under the threat of being sued. That created the pill problem. Then the government started threatening doctors for prescribing too much pain medication. So they cut the amount of prescription medications and allowed cheap heroin to flood into the country at the same time. Was this a coincidence or did someone use this to make massive amounts of money?

[NobleFree]

Usually something "massive" becomes "noticeable

Addiction being noticeable lends little or no support to your claim that it was "massive."

[Garth Tater]

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

Anthrax? Personal use? Humor?

You need to sit down, roll up a fat one and relax. You're not going to convince anyone that believes in personal freedom to lock more people up in cages for the crime of making what you consider to be bad choices in their lives.

Drug prohibition was not, and is not part of the Constitution and you can't put it in there without going through the amendment process no matter how much you would like to. You have a problem with people destroying their lives with drugs. So do I, but I have a bigger problem with people that are willing to bastardize the clear meaning of the Constitution in order to get their way.

[NobleFree]

Not close at all. "Calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union" assumes that said laws are within Congress' enumerated powers. Banning domestic drugs remains unconstitutional.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not close at all. "Calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union" assumes that said laws are within Congress' enumerated powers. Banning domestic drugs remains unconstitutional.

I disagree, and so does the reality we find ourselves in currently.

[DiogenesLamp]

Addiction being noticeable lends little or no support to your claim that it was "massive."

I suppose that depends on whether you were one of the victims or not.

[NobleFree]

Addiction being noticeable lends little or no support to your claim that it was "massive."

I suppose that depends on whether you were one of the victims or not.

No, that which affects me - or you - does not thereby become "massive." Such arguments are the rank emotionalism that is the lifeblood of liberalism.

[gundog]

You just threw a lot of your previous anti-drug arguments in the crapper.

[DiogenesLamp]

You just threw a lot of your previous anti-drug arguments in the crapper.

Really? How so? Drugs are a threat to society, they kill people, and they are dangerous to the citizenry. The government has a mandate to protect the citizenry from foreign and domestic threats, and the constitution gives them the power to do so.

[gundog]

Warning labels, yes, but , curiously, no instructions for use. Toothpaste and shampoo come with directions. But not tobacco. Kind of a “we just sell the stuff...we never told you to set it on fire and inhale it” dodge.

[CodeToad]

“Warning labels, yes, but , curiously, no instructions for use. Toothpaste and shampoo come with directions. But not tobacco. Kind of a “we just sell the stuff...we never told you to set it on fire and inhale it” dodge.”

Excellent observation.

[gundog]

But the general welfare clause is. Sorry...I know it’s not an enumerated power, but it’s what one of my Senators cited when justifying Obamacare. Wnted to kick him in the ‘nads.

[gundog]

Guns, Trump, sugary drinks....ban them all.

[csivils]

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

I agree it is a problem, but having the government decide what is “necessary” in every problem leads to things like a grandma getting arrested because she traveled out of town and forgot some over the counter medicine that is controlled and she bought one already that month, so when she bought a second she was suddenly a criminal...

I want to use the least amount of government possible to solve a problem and even then only when there is no other good alternative.

[DiogenesLamp]

I want to use the least amount of government possible to solve a problem and even then only when there is no other good alternative.

I agree. How do we get there?

[csivils]

Is start over a viable answer :)

[Hemingway's Ghost]

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."

Ironically, the "war on drugs" was a metaphor that became an actual War on Drugs.