The Drug War's Immorality and Abject Failure

Campaign for Liberty ^ | 2010-04-20 | Anthony Gregory

[rabscuttle385]

fyi

[a fool in paradise]

drug use, in and of itself, is a victimless act, whereas murder, like rape, kidnapping, assault, theft, and trespassing, is a rights violation.

Except in the case of DUI, deformed or addicted babies, theft to pay for drug habits because some dope fiends are completely unreliable/unhireable (we are talking ALL drugs when we discuss legalization or else you still maintain a drug war), and theft of taxes via welfare support for self-made "invalids".

But it's victimless.

Even when you could buy various forms of speed over the counter in the 1950s addicts would steal to support their LEGAL habit. The educated pot smoking libertarian who puffs gently in the privacy of his home after a hard day's work is not the lone story.

Happy 4-20 day.

[a fool in paradise]

millions of Americans, including at least one U.S. president, have done

At least 2. Three if you count JFK who doped while in the White House (LSD and pot and painkillers). And the public was upset about the captain relinquishing control of the Exxon Valdez because he'd been drinking...

[Hoodat]

There’s a perfectly valid reason why they call it ‘dope’.

[John O]

There will never be the resources to put an end to the lawbreaking.

The resources exist now, the only thing lacking is the public will to use them.

Make selling illegal drugs a capital crime and the entire network of suppliers will dry up (or die) in a few short months.

(Posted this just to tick off the dopeheads :^) )

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

Very cogent post.

I wonder, is the WOD another gov't creation that is 'too big to fail'? Are we doomed to perpetual futility in waging what amounts to a war on personal freedom?

Many supporters of the WOD point out that drug users are often dangerous characters, especially the coke and meth addicts. True, I will concede. However, if they did not have to rob and kill to support their habit, if drug gangs were put out of business by legal distributors, wouldn't most drug users be far less likely to commit violent crimes?

It's no secret that many career criminals, thieves and burglars for example, like to get themselves 'coked up' or high on meth, as it gives them the balls to do the crimes and calms their fears. However, just like guns, criminals will ALWAYS be able to get their drug of choice.

My strand of the argument against the WOD is to point out that ending it will not produce a perfect world, just a better one. And I would suggest an incremental approach. First, repeal all Federal laws against marijuana. Let the states, like CA and many others, have what they have wanted for a long time: legalization for private consumption. Then sit back and scientifically assess the results. If it withers drug trafficking in marijuana, and reduces police work and frees up prison space for violent criminals, good!

Then try issuing licenses to those who want to use the more dangerous 'white drugs' - cocaine, meth and heroin. But make them register as a user, and restrict their freedom to drive a car and have custody of children. No coke head or meth freak should be allowed those privileges. If someone uses without the above license and restrictions, throw the book at them. I have no sympathy for them. Offer programs to get unhooked and abstain. Not all white drug users will accept these restrictions, but some will. The remaining hard-core cases, who want to blow white drugs and do violent crime, would be easier to isolate and deal with.

The gist of the above suggestions is to stop confusing the 19-year-old pot dealer with the hard core thugs who like to get high on serious drugs and commit violent crimes.

These are my suggestions and I know they deserve a lot of scrutiny and constructive criticism, but it's a start. So if you respond, please do so in an educated, rational manner. No canards please!

[a fool in paradise]

My strand of the argument against the WOD is to point out that ending it will not produce a perfect world, just a better one. And I would suggest an incremental approach. First, repeal all Federal laws against marijuana. Let the states, like CA and many others, have what they have wanted for a long time: legalization for private consumption. Then sit back and scientifically assess the results. If it withers drug trafficking in marijuana, and reduces police work and frees up prison space for violent criminals, good!

FIRST end the welfare state, at least for anyone who is going to use these substances. Pay your own way if you are going to make this choice.

SECOND the federal government has no oversight in this matter. Defeat the laws on a constitutional level. They can claim federal drug laws but it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.

And don't just sell a puff piece about maryjane. Either all drugs are legal (including heroin, LSD, crack, and "cancer" and "AIDS" cures) or there is still law enforcement screening drug sales/use.

[a fool in paradise]

The commander in chief admittedly used cocaine in his youth. He says he gave it up but he made the same claim about tobacco.

Would the use of cocaine (a licensed drug under your scheme) be automatic grounds for refusal of government employment?

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

Would the use of cocaine (a licensed drug under your scheme) be automatic grounds for refusal of government employment?

In most instances, yes. I don't agree with you that all drugs should be treated the same. If they were, then childrem could buy alcohol and tobacco as easily as aspirin. Would that make any sense?

Coke gives you a big head and seriously impairs judgment. I wouldn't want to take a taxi, much less fly on an airplane, where the pilot was high on cocaine, or even had a cocaine 'hangover'. The hangover from coke leads to serious, sometimes suidical, depression.

To throw all substances with a potential for abuse into one category (DRUGZ!!! OMG!!!) is to continue the hysteria about them. Pot, alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamines and opiate derivatives all have a unique pharmacology with unique psychological effects.

I suggest starting with Marijuana legalization. Our last three Presidents have all admitted to using it in their youth, with no apparent lingering effects. (Don't get me started on Barry Soetero. His lingering effects are from the books and teachers he learned from, NOT from smoking reefers, LOL.)

[Bokababe]

sickoflibs said something that’s stuck with me on this subject: “You can’t have freedom in a welfare state”.

Although I completely agree with you on the “freedom to do with your body as you choose” issue and have repeatedly argued for it myself, I understand the objections of many of those who oppose legalizing drugs.

Drug use will never be a truly “victimless crime” as long as non-users are forced to economically support the drug abuser. Drug abusers may be the exception rather than the norm, but when the number of users go up, so do the number of abusers who’ll spend their lives sucking off the welfare teat.

Like it or not, in the current welfare state system, we have been chained together economically and those chains are already heavy. Carrying those on the chain gang who are anesthetized dead weight drug abusers — even if they are few — still affects those breaking their backs to make a living.

Moderate servitude means legally minimizing the dead weight on the chain gang. Freedom means throwing off the chains altogether.

Until we throw off the economic chains linking us to one another, even individually victimless crimes will collectively still claim victims.

[a fool in paradise]

Do kids drink cough syrup and sniff glue to get high?

[a fool in paradise]

Pot, alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamines and opiate derivatives all have a unique pharmacology with unique psychological effects.

Which is why the argument I've heard made recently on air (not by you) that legalizing pot will reduce demand for other drugs falls flat. They DO do different things to you. Take you up, down, sideways. If you want to get a drunk buzz, 20 cups of high caffinated tea or coffee isn't going to get you there.

And there are those who insist that the drug smugglers will just "quit" if they can't smuggle pot. It's not like they'd increase importation of things like xanex, cocaine, or ecstasy.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

Make selling illegal drugs a capital crime and the entire network of suppliers will dry up (or die) in a few short months.

That would make the French Revolution's Reign of Terror look like a Girl Scout cookie sale! I am glad you posted that, John O. It shows how futile it is to wage unthinking 'war' on drugs, because it would have to be real war on US citizens, waged from the Federal level. Besides, do you think Mexican drug cartels will be intimidated by threats of death sentences? They face death and deal out death every day. They are hard core.

Face it, to wipe out all drugs, we would have to invade and conquer Mexico and many other countries and declare martial law, then fight a decades long war in those places. There's a phrase for that - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

[a fool in paradise]

Legalize drugs and other nations will follow suit. And terrorists will blame this nation and our corporations Busch-RJReynolds-Chong for pushing drug addictions on their cultures and exploiting their workers.

Also, would you be able to manufacture/cultivate/spike your own drugs at home? Would there be government oversight (like Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have)? You need to be careful you don’t move the DEA under the ATF.

You have these substances, which can affect many people, sometimes in unknown strengths or unintended effects on heartrate and psyche. Added to it, the escape they provide can become a pit (for money, time, energy).

I’m not offering a solution. Some can come through it many can’t.

Some threatened to (and did) spike other people’s drinks with such substances. Some plotted to spike city water supplies and presidential coffees.

What is the proper sentence for psychological rape?

[Mr. Blonde]

Speaking from experience, lots of Red Bull will give you a hangover like alcohol though. Stupid procrastination.

[Mr. Blonde]

It is currently impossible, the death of a victim is required to impose the death penalty in the US.

[Ken H]

Do you take the same position with respect to fatty foods, obesity and salt in our diet? We have to pay for unhealthy choices of others, so I'd think your answer would be "yes".

Is there any nanny state provision you'll not support, since "you can't have freedom in a welfare state"?

[a fool in paradise]

How do you pay?