End the War on Drugs [Ron Paul]

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., 14th District ^ | 2009-03-30

[rabscuttle385]

We have recently heard many shocking stories of brutal killings and ruthless violence related to drug cartels warring with Mexican and US officials. It is approaching the fever pitch of a full blown crisis. Unfortunately, the administration is not likely to waste this opportunity to further expand government. Hopefully, we can take a deep breath and look at history for the optimal way to deal with this dangerous situation, which is not unprecedented.

Alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality. The reason for the violence was not that making and selling alcohol was inherently dangerous. The violence came about because of the creation of a brutal black market which also drove profits through the roof. These profits enabled criminals like Al Capone to become incredibly wealthy, and militantly defensive of that wealth. Al Capone saw the repeal of Prohibition as a great threat, and indeed smuggling operations and gangland violence fell apart after repeal. Today, picking up a bottle of wine for dinner is a relatively benign transaction, and beer trucks travel openly and peacefully along their distribution routes.

Similarly today, the best way to fight violent drug cartels would be to pull the rug out from under their profits by bringing these transactions out into the sunlight. People who, unwisely, buy drugs would hardly opt for the back alley criminal dealer as a source, if a coffeehouse-style dispensary was an option. Moreover, a law-abiding dispensary is likely to check ID’s and refuse sale to minors, as bars and ABC stores tend to do very diligently. Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves!

If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.

My great concern is that instead of dealing deliberatively with the actual problems, Congress will be pressed again to act quickly without much thought or debate. I can’t think of a single problem we haven’t made worse that way. The panic generated by the looming crisis in Mexico should not be redirected into curtailing more rights, especially our second amendment rights, as seems to be in the works. Certainly, more gun laws in response to this violence will only serve to disarm lawful citizens. This is something to watch out for and stand up against. We have escalated the drug war enough to see it only escalates the violence and profits associated with drugs. It is time to try freedom instead.

[Trailerpark Badass]

It's a pathetic straw man argument by you.

What are you talking about?

[philman_36]

C'mon now, give your source...
Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts.
Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years. That’s 4.1 million fewer people using cocaine.

They might need to consider updating their (spit) facts...
This led Alaska’s residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990.

Cannabis Legal Status by Erowid
Alaska Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled that personal possession of cannabis is protected by state constitution's privacy clause. As recently as Sep 14, 2004, the AK Supreme Court refused to overturn a unanimous Appellate Court decision that police were not allowed to enter a home simply based on smelling cannabis smoke outside. See Pot vs Privacy, Oct 2003 and Alaska Supreme Court chooses privacy over pot, Sep 2004 and Eric Sterling's Response. The Alaska Legislature passed a law banning cannabis, but a judge struck down the law in July 2006: Judge rules against Alaska marijuana ban law, Jul 2006, AP. ACLU Press Release July 11, 2006

Then again, disinformation is the forte of government.

[philman_36]

I'm sorry if I left out your favorite drug.
So you're reduced to little more than casting aspersions.

So sad. /Anyday - Beatles

[death2tyrants]

C'mon now, give your source

I did. I cited the DOJ.

Then again, disinformation is the forte of government.

Claiming government conspiricy and citing the ACLU as a source does not a sound argument make.

[philman_36]

I did. I cited the DOJ.
True enough, but you didn't give a link to your source. I got ya covered though.
Claiming government conspiricy and citing the ACLU as a source does not a sound argument make.
Have I done either?

[Species8472]

During World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, dextroamphetamine and methamphetamine were distributed to our soldiers to keep the fighting men going and to avoid fatigue.

In the Gulf war more than half of all American pilots used amphetamines to keep them going on long missions. And they do the same in the war in Iraq.

What's more, the US Air Force says dexedrine isn't harmful. The pilots need it to stay awake and alert during long missions.

[death2tyrants]

I like Reagan's strategy for the war on drugs. Build more prisons.

[GLDNGUN]

So you're reduced to little more than casting aspersions. So sad. /Anyday - Beatles

Just a little deductive reasoning. I respond to a post about cocaine and heroin, and jump me for leaving marijuana out of the discussion. If I'm wrong about it being your "favorite", feel free to set the record straight.

[death2tyrants]

Have I done either?

Both:

ACLU Press Release July 11, 2006....Then again, disinformation is the forte of government.

[djsherin]

Ha, obviously pinged the wrong person ;)

[philman_36]

I respond to a post about cocaine and heroin, and (sic) jump me for leaving marijuana out of the discussion.
Missed it by that much. /Agent 86
If I'm wrong about it being your "favorite", feel free to set the record straight.
My favorite drug is acetaminophen. Well, that and nicotine and caffeine.

[djsherin]

Post 98 was supposed to be a reply to your post 93, but I accidentally replied to 94.

[Ken H]

My DOJ numbers were for addiction. Sounds like your numbers are from the household surveys, and they do not give numbers for addicts. Here's what the ONDCP says about the reliability of those surveys with regard to heroin addiction:

"Cautious evaluation of this data is necessary because the NHSDA cannot accurately measure rare or stigmatized drug use, relying as it does on self-reporting and on people residing in households."

http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/policy/ndcs00/chap2_4

Here are the DOJ numbers for addiction:

"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992."

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm

"The demand for both powdered and crack cocaine in the United States is high. Among those using cocaine in the United States during 2000, 3.6 million were hardcore users who spent more than $36 billion on the drug in that year." --http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/cocaine.htm

______________________________________

The US population in 2000 was about 280,000,000. So the combined addiction rate was about 1.6% in 2000 vs 0.5% in 1900, according to information on the USDOJ website.

[mommya]

Your question about meth is an interesting one - and difficult to answer.

It is hard enough in this “drug war” atmosphere to openly admit that you want drugs like pot to be legalized - let alone meth - yet I think freedom dictates that it should be available.

I’m not that eloquent on some of my beliefs, but I did come across this link that is worth a read if you get time. I believe it is a Libertarian site.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html

See what you think.

[philman_36]

Both:
I hardly think so. The link I gave had the ACLU Press Release. That's hardly me "citing" the ACLU. And there is other information relating to the same issue so ignore it if you choose to. It changes nothing.
And it is patently clear through the link I gave that there is distinct disinformation going on when data that is on a government website is not current. That is hardly "claiming government conspiricy". All I'm saying is that they're intentionally leaving out current information so as to persuade people to think along certain lines with obviously biased, antiquated information.
That is disinformation, nothing more, nothing less.

[CzarChasm]

well heck, at least you're trying - give yourself a gold star!

but seriously folks, this king of cherry-picking and half-assed fact-finding isn't going to cut it:

1. outlawing the "manufacture, sale, or transportation" was quite sufficient; outlawing consumption was not strictly necessary - nice try, but this is just another strawman. You might find the specifics of the 18th Amendment and the accompanying Volstead Act interesting. You may also find the pivotal role of Harry Anslinger also interesting - you just can't keep a good bureaucrat down, even if his job is constitutionally repealed...
2. alcohol did spike up after Prohibition was repealed, and very quickly leveled off - you can't just look at some of the data, you have to look at all of it. Note the immediate availability of small portable stills and the vast jump in vineyards...note also that this article claims that consumption did decrease during prohibition, which may be correct in liquid terms, but that what was consumed changed drastically (whiskey up, beer and wine way down), and more importantly, how it was consumed changed as well (i.e. people used to have a beer at the tavern before prohibition, but people went to speakeasys to get drunk).
3. history is rife with failed prohibitions, e.g. attempts by the British government to prohibit Gin production, such as the Gin Act of 1736, resulted in massive illicit distilling...and their alcohol problems were far worse than ours to start with
4. the Dutch experiment was wildly successful if you consider the situation before legalization and regulation - high drug-related crime, etc., just like we have here now. The article you cited is hysterically funny, because it is trying to make "closing half the coffee shops and brothels" sound like a complete policy failure. Note that the "crimes" being complained about are "broken windows and street noise". You might try less biased/hysterical sources of information such as this university study. The last time I was in Holland (2003) the biggest crime problem was german/belgian car-theft operations. Yes, some Dutch were embarrassed by their 'drug tourism' and 'sex tourism', but street crime was nowhere near the level it was before legalization - which was the whole point of the experiment.
5. 7000 estimated addicts in a city of 750,000 people? That's actually pretty good - less than 1%. Estimates in the US are in the 6%-7% range. And 75% or so of those are just cannabis users.

B- for effort, C- for accuracy. But thanks for playing!

[Ken H]

Meant to include:

"By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict."

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

[CzarChasm]

excellent article, very well-said and logical points, thank you for injecting some rationality into this ridiculous chattering ;-)

[GLDNGUN]

ALL of my points still stand.

Prohibition was doomed to fail from the start. They take a substance that had been legal and widely used legally since the dawn of time and try a "Prohibition" but don't prohibit its use. Now THAT'S funny! The law was openly flaunted.

Usage did skyrocket after "prohibition" ended. Did it finally level off? Well, DUH, nothing can skyrocket forever statistically.

the Dutch experiment was wildly successful if you consider the situation before legalization and regulation

Oh really? Then why aren't they moving to make other drugs illegal since ignoring all pot laws was "wildly successful"??? Can you find any Dutch officials saying ANYTHING CLOSE to: "Due to our lax pot laws being 'wildly successful', we've decided to end the experiment. Yes, crime rates were next to nothing and everyone loved coming to Amsterdam, but what we really want is HIGH CRIME! Therefore, we're going back to the failed policies of the past!". Hardly. Get a grip.

[jmc813]

You smoke pot with your friends?

How old are you?

I know plenty of successful medical doctors, attorneys, and teachers who occasionally enjoy the green.