In the War on Drugs, everyone's a loser

Denver Post ^ | July 06, 2003 | Michael Holzmeister

[toothless]

I have a love/hate relationship with the War on Drugs.

It provides such a wealth of subject matter to write about that I shudder to think what might happen if it were suddenly declared over. I might be forced into writing about positive subjects instead.

The War on Drugs has had a profound effect on me. I used to be a proud Republican, but the more I listened to law-and-order Republicans chatter about the dire need for ever more enforcement of the controlled-substance laws, the more Libertarian I became.

I'm still a registered Republican over at the courthouse, but in the voting booth, the Republicans have lost me.

I never pass up an opportunity to write about the War on Drugs. Every time the local drug warriors do anything, I perk right up because invariably one of the warriors is going to say something that makes no sense.

At the city council meeting a couple of weeks ago, our local regiment of drug warriors got up to report on their operations for the last three years. The chief of police - who I believe is a good cop and citizen - told the council that waging war on drugs is difficult. The warriors have rules to follow, the chief explained, and those rules cause problems.

Now I know that the chief believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but it scares me when a drug warrior wearing a badge and a gun stands up at a public meeting and says that the document that makes us Americans causes him problems.

You have to admit, though, the chief is exactly right. It would be so much easier if the soldiers fighting the War on Drugs could break down every door on every house in town and conduct searches. Imagine the drugs they would find.

If drugs are as big a scourge as the warriors would have us believe, they are going to need a convoy of trucks to haul all the illegal substances away. Oh, and for the people without any drugs but who were searched anyway, just try to remember that the Bill of Rights causes too many problems to be of much value when it comes to waging the War on Drugs.

The War on Drugs is confusing for the soldiers fighting it. The local warriors made a bust here a couple of years ago, and they wanted to keep it secret. I don't like secrets, especially when someone has been thrown in jail. I wanted to know who was arrested and why the person was arrested. The old undersheriff was reluctant to share that information with the newspaper.

He explained that if word were to get out in the paper that a bust had been made, then the other drug dealers would lay low and stop selling drugs. If they're not selling drugs, it's just that much harder to catch them.

You can see how confusing the War on Drugs is. The object of the war is to stop the flow of drugs, but the drug warrior told me that the soldiers can conduct the war much better if the enemy continues selling drugs.

Do the warriors actually want to win the war?

If they don't want to win the war, it's time to cease operations, reinstate our rights and try something different. I'm doing my part; I vote Libertarian. Libertarians believe drugs should be legal.

If drugs were legal, our army of drug warriors could stand down and save us huge amounts of money. The soldiers could return to police work, serving and protecting us instead of suspecting us. Instead of gangsters making a killing, legitimate business people could be making a living.

If you're afraid that legalizing drugs would make them more available than they are now, think again. Drugs are easy to find - ask any drug warrior - yet the vast majority of people choose not to buy them. There are better ways to spend time and money.

The War on Drugs is a resounding failure. Drugs still flow freely. The War on Drugs has had some success, however. It has successfully battled the Constitution and helped to quash our freedom.

[Maelstrom]

Slavery has a Constitutional amendment.

Temperance *had* a Constitutional amendment, but the issue isn't using drugs while driving is it...I mean you *can* drink alcohol if you are not driving.

The sarcasm you think is inherent in your statements, actually isn't quite there.

[Maelstrom]

Wrong.

We're saying the War on Drugs creates more problems than it solves.

This is essentially untrue for *most* other forms of law enforcement that pursue people who commit actual crimes against people other than themselves.

It should seem pretty clear that hasing down murderers, confidence men, rapists, and muggers does NOT create more problems than it solves as they and their victims are essentially the only people involved in the process. For your War on Drugs...*everybody* suffers as laws are sidestepped, requirements for warrants, the confiscation of property, and the relaxation of limits against use of lethal force detrimentally impact the liberty of innocent bystanders.

[Maelstrom]

"Where the drugs are, so is the crime. "

Look up the word "tautology".

[Maelstrom]

Pshaw!

Republicans are bashed more often by Libertarians because their essential underpinnings...Limited government power...are so similar.

Republicans are bashed because they have a chance to restore the nation.

Democrats aren't because quite clearly they're a Marxist or Stalinist organization.

[Maelstrom]

Anti-libertarians hate independent people from all walks of life.

[Maelstrom]

Actually, it appears drug legalization isn't necessary before it happens either...This is your idea of advocating in favor of the War on Drugs?

[Maelstrom]

There about a dozen of registered names in support of the War on Drugs.

Some of them are actually different people too.

[Maelstrom]

What's laughable is the fact that we have a historical measure we can use to judge your reasoning process.

What happened to the violent crime rate after Prohibition was repealed?

((Hint: It is available at guncite.com for a different purpose))

>>IF you're unable to locate it, ping me, I'll be happy to rub it in<<

[Maelstrom]

Well sir, you've stepped in it now...
...You've crossed the line into total bullshit and your shovel isn't big enough to dig you out.

Legalizing drugs is about restoring limitations against the government, not about ease of access to the drugs.

Thus, if you are to be believed, you've given a very strong argument for legalization. The best of both worlds is drugs that are not illegal...removing the enormous profit incentive their sale now provides...AND...destroying easy access due to liability issues.

You sir...should be in favor of legalization...if you believe your own statements.

[SSN558]

"Anyone that supports legalizing crack has a cracked head!"

I support legalizing crack as a national priority, in these lean economic times it helps eliminate the competition. Various localities could still prohibit the sale and possession of such, subject to their own budgets for controlling the problem.

This is how it works. First open the borders under a free trade agreement. Check.

Then introduce a highly addictive substance that makes people go crazy. Check.

Then artificially inflate the price and profits of the substance by selectively seizing only about 10 to 20% of the substance. Check.

Demand that millions of non-using citizens pee in bottles as a condition of employment. Check.

Conduct raids and stigmatize entire areas, ensuring that the only viable economic activity in these areas will be the sales and distribution of crack. Check.

Sounds like the plan to me. Crack is already defacto legalized. We don't need no stinking war on drugs.

Famous quote from retired DEA agent that now teaches criminal justice. "I sure hate to think that I spent such a large portion of my life working on a useless enterprise, but it sure seems that way."

[xrp]

You're right. The Republicans have definitely been cozying up to socialism. Good call.

[Maelstrom]

http://www.guncite.com/gsupply.gif

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html

Note the drop in crimes after the repeal of Prohibition.

[robertpaulsen]

"Sure. But I was thinking more of Merck, Eli Lily, etc."

Oh, not doctors?

If a drug company wants to research the medical benefits of the chemical compounds in marijuana, I have no problem with that.

If they later come out with a "marijuana" patch, pill, injection, inhaler, or suppository, I support that.

[Kevin Curry]

Note the drop in crimes after the repeal of Prohibition.

There has been a dramatic drop in violent crimes over the past fifteen years coincident with the enforcement of tough drug laws. I've posted the chart many times. Would you like me to do so again?

[verity]

Another libertarian lament!

[William Terrell]

But, you see, the items in your list represent damage a person to to another via an assault on that person. Each one is immoral based on "Do unto others what you want them to do unto you" and the fact that society can't exist without controls on what one does to another.

Societies have gotten along just fine over the centuries without controls on what one does to himself. How does the Golden Rule apply to laws against self treatment?

Each item in your list generates a cause for complaint from the victim. Who complains about a drug transaction? Neither party does; police need entrapment, informants and spies to generate a "complaint".

</sarcasm for those that are high and don't get it>

Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but many out here actually make this case (or lack of a case).

[xrp]

Sure. While you're at it, can you see if you can find a chart that shows the number of violent criminals that have been let out of prison early to make room for the 700,000 non-violent drug offenders of the last 15 years? Thanks!

[robertpaulsen]

"You want to see porn and gambling illegal? I can kinda understand the porn thing, but gambling? Why?"

First of all, I stated that there were "a growing number of people who are selfish, self-centered individualists" who want these things to be legal -- that all of the above are "victimless crimes" and that the government has no business in interfering. I think on that we agree.

Second, you're asking about my personal stance on porn and gambling? Not illegal, but reasonably restricted and regulated.

As far as gambling, I am against state lotteries and "riverboat" casino gambling. The increased revenue to the state is just used to expand government giveaways (or do you believe them when they say it goes towards education?). Therefore, there is no benefit, and the people who can least afford it are the ones gambling away their welfare checks. Gambling addiction is horrible, and we all pay for its consequences. Gambling gives false hope and sends the message that one can get something for nothing -- it appeals to the ugly side of man.

True story. Many years ago, I was in Las Vegas (for a convention) and I watched a young man doubling up on his bets spin after spin. He kept losing, and his wife was pulling at his arm to leave. His last bet was around $500., which he lost.

Not a lot of money, I know, but you could tell it was way over what he was willing to lose. It was, I don't know, sad to watch, and I felt sorry for both of them.

That one incident hit me hard, and I guess it shaped my opinion. So maybe I'm not the one to ask about legalized gambling.

[MrLeRoy]

you're asking about my personal stance on porn and gambling? Not illegal, but reasonably restricted and regulated.

Me, too. Why is that not also your stance on drugs?

[jmc813]

I agree with you that state lotteries should go. Tax on the stupid, I think.