The Conservative War on Drug Prohibition

American Conservative ^ | 2011-05-12 | Jack Hunter

[rabscuttle385]

ping!

[alicewonders]

The “War on Drugs” fits the classic description of insanity - IT’S NOT WORKING.

[truthguy]

The “War on Drugs” fits the classic description of insanity - IT’S NOT WORKING.

100% agreement. But what do you think would happen to a Republican presidential candidate who advocated drug legalization? He'd be toast and we all know it.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I am open to a libertarian position that all drugs should be legalized and let the chips fall where they may, however I am firmly convinced that not all the wondrous benefits of doing so will come to pass.

[arderkrag]

Much like the minimum wage, virtually all data available on drug prohibition points to the utter ineffectiveness of our policies. The primary difference is that prohibition of drugs has been far more damaging to this country than prohibition of market determined base wage levels. Whether measured in dollars or lives—the War on Drugs continues to be a great and unnecessary tragedy.

I absolutely agree. But I still won't vote for Paul the Elder.

[Mariner]

I agree that drug laws should reside only at the state level with the exception that the Feds can enforce a federal law at the international borders and ports of entry.

And, at some point we have to pass state laws that forbid no-knock home entry unless there is reason to believe there is imminent danger to someone in the house...besides from the local $.10 SWAT team with a b*ner to shoot somebody.

[Just another Joe]

(Reaching for the popcorn)

[alicewonders]

There’s too much money to be made by sticking to the status quo - organized crime, law enforcement and politicians - all profit from keeping things the way they are.

Today, even more than usual, I don’t have much hope that things will get better here in America. I think the fix is in, both parties seem to be comfortably ensconced in Washington - they don’t want to change anything. They’ve got a good thing going and us stupid rube Tea Party types are trying to mess it up for them.

Maybe it’s the weather, but today I feel bad vibes.

[SoCal Pubbie]

So tell me, how would things be better if all drugs were legalized?

[alicewonders]

I think there’s a lot of people in jail on drug charges that are not bad people, that don’t pose a risk to society. I think there’s a lot of money spent to do this that, frankly, we can’t afford to spend anymore. I think that the HUGE profit motive and lack of regulation causes very bad people to prey on young and vulnerable people.

I don’t really see anything good that comes out of the current approach - do you?

[umgud]

I can’t think of anybody who abstains from drugs because they are illegal. And, if they legalize them tomorrow, I won’t become a drug crazed addict.

[SoCal Pubbie]

First of all, I believe it's a canard that loads of people are in jail for simple possession.

But let me ask you. Do you think there would be NO negative effects if cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc were legal?

[alicewonders]

But let me ask you. Do you think there would be NO negative effects if cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc were legal?

Of course I don't. But there comes a point when we are losing more & more of our freedoms every day, it seems - with the reason being that the government has to "protect us from ourselves". Now, they want to tell us how much salt we can eat, what kind of light bulbs we can use, etc.

Where does it stop? I think that people that do things that cause harm to others, should be punished. But I don't think that that it's anyone's business what responsible people do - responsibly. Do you ever watch COPS? There are always going to be stupid, irresponsible people - no matter if their activities are legal or illegal - it doesn't stop the idiots.

I'm tired of living in this nanny state, it's not a Utopia, and it never will be.

[Arthur McGowan]

The War on Drugs is just another example of a permanent problem: Delusions and follies.

Soscurity.
Government schooling.
Minimum wage.
Obama is a citizen.

People cling to these irrational beliefs, despite the absence of any supporting data, out of nothing more than lack of intellectual curiosity or fear of ridicule.

[FredZarguna]

Do you think there would be NO negative effects if cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc were legal?

We cannot live in an idealized world, and the question you ask is a silly question a liberal would ask. Implicit in "Leave Afghanistan Now," (for example) is a pretense that the world would simply return to the status quo ante. But of course, it would not. We are in Afghanistan, so now we must compare what's likely to happen with our leaving with what's likely to happen if we stay.

The question asked by actual adults is: "Do you believe the effects of legalizing some or all of these drugs would involve trade-offs more or less beneficial than the current strategy?" We can debate that question. But we cannot debate a question that compares a fantasy world to the real one.

[SoCal Pubbie]

It seems to me your issue, as it is with many, is not the War on Drugs per se but it's implementation. I'm not sure legalization would be doing more than trading one set of problems for another. Since it's highly unlikely that any politician would ever be in favor of legalization for minors, I think you'd see the same acts you abhor still happen with all the added issues of wider drug use on top of them.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Most of the funding for Nixon's “War on Drugs” was allocated for addiction treatment and public education—aimed primarily at elementary school students. About 25 percent of the funding went to enforcement and interdiction. Today that ratio is reversed with the U.S. funding military style “eradication wars” around the world. The “War” provides a large amount of funding for local, state and federal police forces whose interests are served by perpetuating the “emergency.”

[SoCal Pubbie]

You misunderstand the nature of the question, which was directed to another poster. Since that person had not addressed the essence of my post in the reply, I asked directly whether or not that person felt there would be no ill effects of legalization. I was hoping to get that person to list such downsides as he or she may project them. I did not mean to imply that only with no ill effects should legalization be adopted.

Of course the issue is whether “the effects of legalizing some or all of these drugs would involve trade-offs more or less beneficial than the current strategy?” I did not want to put words into another poster's mouth, or in this case mouse.

I agree totally with the question above. My original post addressed my opinion that those in favor of legalization misjudge the benefits of that idea while dismissing the downside.

[FredZarguna]

In that case we agree completely. There are experts who study the hard-science of addiction, and the epidemiology is clear-cut: there will be more drug addicts, and we know roughly how many at least over the long term, and assuming society does not drastically change. There will be fewer non-violent offenders in prison, and we know that number, too. We will do less violence to our Constitution, and I like that. But we will also have more dead pedestrians and motorists, and many of them will be innocent victims, and I'm not so sanguine about those. But again... trade-offs.

I agree with you that many Libertarians are kooks, stoners, or utopians (having, many years ago been one -- Libertarian, that is -- I'll take an oath on the number of crazies in the Party) who seem to have very childish beliefs about the benefits.

If Paul sticks to the Constitutionalists' position that this is not a Federal matter any more than wife-beating (which is now also a Federal Beef) I would have no problem with the position.