Waving banner of failed drug war

Valley Morning Star (TX) ^ | Aug 14, 03 | Mike Perez

[MrLeRoy]

The U.S. government has approved a return to anti-drug flights over Colombia. Those flights were suspended two years ago after a Peruvian fighter mistakenly shot down a plane, killing missionary Veronica Bowers and her infant daughter.

The mistake was blamed on a breakdown in procedures and a lack of communication between U.S. operatives and the Peruvian air force. Those problems have been solved, according to government sources in the United States. However, the flights will not resume over Peru because of a lack of planes and radar in that South American country.

The Bowerses were innocent victims of the war on drugs. They weren’t the first and, tragically, they won’t be the last. The government’s misguided mission to keep Americans from voluntarily putting things into their bodies that aren’t good for them claims innocent victims every day.

Last year, the Office of National Drug Control Policy spent millions of dollars on an ad campaign that attempted to blame those deaths on drug users in the United States by linking the war on drugs to the war on terrorism. Those ads ignored the simple economics of market forces.

Any time a product or activity is prohibited by law, a black market for it springs up. After all, many people aren’t going to give up something they desire simply because it’s illegal; by hook or by crook they’ll find a way to obtain it and they’ll pay whatever the going price is. If that price becomes too much to bear, customers will find an alternative if they can.

Of course, those who have become addicted to certain drugs have fewer options as long as they refuse treatment.

On the supply side of the equation, because providers must operate below the radar of law enforcement, their costs of doing business are higher. They move their product in small quantities, sometimes bribe officials and they must protect their markets themselves since they cannot turn to government for that support. All of this increases suppliers’ costs above what they would be if they operated in the open. Profits must be high enough to pay these costs and offset the possibility of getting caught and sent to prison.

It’s these high profits that make dealing drugs so attractive to organized criminals of all types. These people will go to any length to protect their livelihoods. This goes a long way toward explaining the violence associated with the drug trade — individuals and gangs are protecting their turf.

Unfortunately, criminals don’t often worry about the collateral damage of their turf wars. The innocent bystanders killed and injured in these battles for market control are also victims of the drug war.

The U.S. government’s war on drugs has been anything but successful. According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse released a year ago, drug use among people under 26 was on the rise. The study found no significant change in drug use among Americans older than 26. We can’t help but believe that at least a portion of drug use is the lure of forbidden fruits.

We’re not naive enough to think that decriminalizing drugs would solve all the problems associated with the drug war — in this country or in the countries that produce drugs. We do, however, believe the war on drugs is a waste of resources, especially in a time when government spending is climbing. That money and manpower could be put to better use elsewhere in society.

We’re also hard-pressed to see where it’s the government’s responsibility to limit people’s freedom in such a personal decision as what they do with their own bodies. Government should limit itself to making sure people’s actions don’t infringe on the rights of others.

The government does have a responsibility to prevent drug use by those who aren’t able to take responsibility for their actions, such as minors, but adults should be allowed to make their own decisions so long as they accept the consequences.

We wouldn’t want to be on the road with someone who had just taken a mind-altering drug, any more than we want to share the road with a drunken driver. That’s where the government’s duty lies — protecting the innocent.

But if a person wants to smoke marijuana or snort a bit of cocaine in the privacy of his own home after a hard day’s work, is it really the government’s job to stop him?

Thomas Jefferson wrote he "would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." We’ve tried prohibition; perhaps it’s time to try liberty.

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/involved?group=124) ping

[KantianBurke]

What was the rate of drug use in the 1950's versus the 1970's? Anyone want to bet that it rose as time went on? Hmm...wonder why that was????

[robertpaulsen]

Yawn.

[narby]

perhaps it’s time to try liberty.

Should read: "perhaps it's time to try liberty AGAIN".

We had the liberty to do with our bodies what we wanted until around 100 years ago. Before that time, there was a drug problem, but not nearly what we have today.

[narby]

What was the rate of drug use in the 1950's versus the 1970's? Anyone want to bet that it rose as time went on? Hmm...wonder why that was????

Drug use has gone up and down in the US irregardless of its legal status. There was plenty of Marijuana use in the hispanic community in the 50's. But nobody cared, and it was no big deal.

There was a spike up in Cocaine use in the 1890's when CocaCola and hundreds of other drinks popularized it in "Drug Store" soda fountains. But by the time it was made illegal, its use had already declined drastically with no help from the law. By that time, Coke had changed their drug ingredient to Caffene.

[John Beresford Tipton]

Hey, George, hows about something similar, but useful:

WARTHOGS TO THE RIO GRANDE!

[MrLeRoy]

What was the rate of drug use in the 1950's versus the 1970's? Anyone want to bet that it rose as time went on? Hmm...wonder why that was????

I give up---why?

[KantianBurke]

Point taken but I was trying to point out the rise of the drug culture in the 60's which brought about such high rates of drug use across such a wide spectrum of the US population. The cultural problem needs to be fixed starting with MOM AND DAD.

[KantianBurke]

see post #9

[MrLeRoy]

Thanks for the bump.

[MrLeRoy]

The cultural problem needs to be fixed starting with MOM AND DAD.

Indeed; I thought only liberals thought of government as a parent, but Drug Warrior "conservatives" seem to disagree.

[Orangedog]

I'm still waiting for the "conservative" drug warriors to explain why the DEA and drug war are constitutional but the departments of eduacation, labor, housing , health and human services, and EPA are not. All of these trample all over the 10th amendment, among other things. They all should go, but we have to keep the soccer moms happy and the FOP employed.

[moyden2000]

Libertarian pothead alert.

Forgot to mention hookers and porn.

[DBrow]

The increase in drug use was, IMO, fueled by a media campaign to popularize such drug use.

From the antics of Leary to your local DJ playing "Itchycoo Park" while making sly in-jokes about dope to posters of Jim Morrison with his pupils as big as quarters, there was an ad campaign that was worth millions, if there were a way to track the value.

Add to this the cost of Mexican pot of about $100/kilo, LSD doses of about $0.20 wholesale ($1000/gram), and you have a readily available product with free advertising- good for sales. "Head shops" made instruction and paraphernalia widely available, along with countercultural literature touting free and open drug use (Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, Zap, Mother's Oats, High Times). The cops did not hunt down homegrowers in any serious way, so this also raised availability and made dope seem pretty innocuous if your neighbor could just grow it.

Much of the publicity included a sanction- Jimi does it, it's cool for you too, show how hip you are and join us- plus instruction on how to use, and how much to expect to pay. Important factors in promoting a product are assurances that it is acceptable, and easing uncertainties of social interactions. Cigarrette use in movies and TV showed potential users how to use, and that it was OK to do. Same deal with dope, seeing Sonny Bono on acid on Dick Cavett.

A good book on the growth and impact of "the drug culture " is Acid Dreams, it's on Amazon.

[BlackbirdSST]

Another WOsD troll alert! Blackbird.

[MrLeRoy]

Libertarian pothead alert.

Who's a pothead?

Forgot to mention hookers and porn.

They're not the subject of the article---but since you bring them up, what about them?

[MrLeRoy]

Interesting history---but this media campaign has faded (I can't remember the last time I saw drug use positively or even neutrally depicted in any medium) and drug use continues. So what do we do now?

[DBrow]

Drug use continues, but at a much lower rate than when someone handed out 1000 doses of STP at a concert, or the pranksters dosed a few thousand at Monterray.

There is much propaganda about how much drug use there is, but looking at data from high school surveys, although everyone says that drugs are easy to get, what is actually used is mostly alcohol and tobacco. With MJ going for over $150/oz, how much can kids afford? E is $10-20 per pill.

I go to lots of outdoor events, and in the '70s and early '80s, there was lots of pot smoking. Not anywhere near as much now, nor do I run across as many obviously baked people as I used to- like at a Store 24 at 3 AM. Drug use has gone back to a sneaky, covert action, and on many campuses (campii?) students call security if they smell pot in the dorm.

Both the WOsD Warriors and their foes use high drug use numbers in their respective propaganda pitches, one to rally the troops to greater efforts and the other to show how ineffectual those efforts are.

[coloradan]

Burp.